HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1682 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014 Between:
Aggdi Bakkamma.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through S.I. Police, PS, Pothkapally, Karimnagar District and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1682 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 15-10-2007 in Sessions Case No.904 of 2006 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Karimnagar.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Pothkapally of Karimnagar District filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 5 herein alleging that P.W.1 gave report contending that marriage of her daughter with A.1 was performed about six and half years prior to the complaint and at the time of marriage, Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and gold articles were given and that they lived happily for two years but after the marriage of her second daughter for whom a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was given, the accused were insisting the deceased to bring difference amount of Rs.1,00,000/- additional dowry and for that, they harassed her mentally and physically and that on 22-8-2005 she received information about the death of their daughter and that death was only due to harassment and she gave a complaint which is registered as Cr.No.58 of 2005 and investigation revealed that respondents 2 to 5 are liable for punishment under Section 304-B I.P.C.
On these allegations, fourteen witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted them of the charge leveled against them. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred by the complainant- de facto complainant.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that trial court erred in appreciating evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to prove that the marriage of deceased with A.1 was within seven years from the date of death and thereby, Section 304-B I.P.C. is not attracted but the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly disclose that the marriage between deceased and A.1 was within seven years.
It is further submitted that in the complaint, it is mentioned that the marriage was about six and half years prior to the death but trial court failed to consider the same. It is also further submitted that learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in appreciating the evidence and therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgment of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, the deceased died due to harassment and her death was within seven years from the date of marriage and the respondents 2 to 5 are liable for punishment under Section 304-B I.P.C. Out of fourteen witnesses examined, the main material witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 5 are the circumstantial witnesses and the remaining witnesses are panchayatdars, photographer, Medical Officer, Mandal Revenue Officer and Investigating Officer.
Now the main argument of the advocate for revision petitioner is that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly disclose that the marriage between deceased and A.1 was within seven years from the date of death but as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she categorically admitted in her cross-examination that marriage between A.1 and the her deceased daughter was 8 or 9 years prior to the death. Though P.Ws.3 to 5 are examined to prove the alleged harassment, they have not supported prosecution case and they were treated hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C.statements are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4.
Learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to seven years period is contrary to the averments in Ex.P.1. He further observed that P.W.2 gave a contra version to the evidence of P.W.1 on this aspect. Investigating Officer clearly deposed in his evidence that he has not collected any material regarding date of marriage. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not consistent and not supported with the contents of Ex.P.1, and also by any other independent witnesses, learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit out of doubt to the accused i.e., respondents 2 to 5 herein and acquitted them of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C.
When the prosecution failed to show that the death of the deceased was within seven of the marriage, charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. cannot withstand. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of other witnesses who are inquest panchayatdars, photographer, mediators, Medical Officers, Mandal Revenue Officer, and Investigating Officers is only corroborative in nature and it is not a substantial piece of evidence and the evidence of official witnesses which is corroborative in nature is of no use and the trial court has rightly recorded acquittal.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused i.e., respondents 2 to 5 herein and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 1-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1682 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014