HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1879 OF 2006 Dated 16-4-2014 Between:
Baggu Krishna Rao.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1879 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 13-11-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 24-7-2003 in C.C.No.94 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriklakulam Rural filed Charge Sheet alleging that marriage between revision petitioner and P.W.2 was performed on 28-4-1999 and after marriage, both of them lived happily for about one year and thereafter, revision petitioner with the assistance of A.2 to A.4 started harassment and subjected P.W.2 to cruelty by demanding her to bring dowry. It is further alleged that revision petitioner used to beat P.W.2 regularly by not providing proper food and cloth and caused ill-treatment both physically and mentally and due to his continuous harassment, she went away to her parents house and thereafter, a mediation was held but revision petitioner did not heed to the advice of mediators and therefore, a complaint is lodged which is registered as crime No.20 of 2001 and investigation revealed that revision petitioner and A.2 to A.4 have committed offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. During trial, P.W.1 to 6 are examined and Ex.P.1 is marked on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner and A.2 to A.4 guilty for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced revision petitioner to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and sentenced A.2 to A.4 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, revision petitioner i.e., A.1 preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Srikakulam on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both trial court and appellate court have erred in convicting the revision petitioner on the basis of interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 and further submitted that court at Sriklakuklam has no jurisdiction as the alleged offence is committed within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not consistent and there are variations in the evidence of these two witnesses and without considering them, both trial court and appellate court have convicted the revision petitioner and the accused has to be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record would clinchingly prove that the revision petitioner harassed his wife both physically and mentally and both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, revision petitioner and P.W.2 lived happily for about one year after marriage and thereafter, revision petitioner with the assistance of A.2 to A.4 started harassing P.W.2 to bring more dowry. According to prosecution, P.W.2 was subjected for both mental and physical cruelty. Victim is examined as P.W.2 and she deposed about harassment she suffered in the hands of A.1 to A.4. She deposed that as she could not tolerate harassment, she went back to her parents house and thereafter, matter was placed before elders but her husband did not heed to the advice of the elders. She was cross-examined on behalf of the accused but her testimony with regard to harassment and demand for more dowry remained undisturbed. Her evidence is further supported and corroborated by the evidence of her father who is examined as P.W.1. He deposed that at the time of marriage, he paid Rs.70,000/- besides colour T.V.
1 ½ sovereign of gold and sari samans worth of Rs.13,000/-. He further deposed that when A.1 demanded for additional dowry, he paid Rs.25,000/- and in spite of that, her daughter was harassed and beaten. He deposed that accused have demanded to bring some more additional dowry and when he expressed his inability, this accused started ill treating his daughter. He deposed that he placed dispute before elders but the accused did not hear to the advice of elders. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that he paid dowry amount by selling away his land. Except putting suggestions, nothing could be elicited from P.W.1 to doubt his testimony. Mother of P.W.2 is examined as P.W.3 and she too deposed in the same lines as spoken to by her husband i.e., P.W.1. One of the elders who attended the marriage is examined as P.W.4 and he deposed that at the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.70,000/- as dowry besides colour T.V., cycle and sari articles worth Rs.13,000/- In the cross-examination, it was elicited that he was the maternal uncle of P.W.2 and except putting suggestions, nothing could be elicited from him to discredit his testimony. One of the elders for panchayat is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 raised dispute before them and they called the accused and held panchayat but accused did not hear their words and then they advised P.W.1 to give police report. In the cross-examination, the panchayat organized by this witness is not disputed and on the other hand, it is elicited from his evidence that family of P.W.1 and family of accused requested him to convince P.W.1 to send back P.W.2 to the marital home. Another elder in the panchayat is examined as P.W.6 and he also deposed in the same lines.
8. Considering the above evidence, both trial court and appellate court have found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.
9. Here in this case, Investigating Officer is not examined but there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and the objection of the accused for non-examination of the Investigating Officer is negatived both by trial court and appellate court. One of the objections raised here is that court at Srikaklulam has no jurisdiction and the alleged incident was within the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam. This objection was not raised either before trial court or appellate court. It is not the case of revision petitioner that they are not residents of Sriklaiulam District. The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that harassment was caused to her at the matrimonial home which is the place of residence of revision petitioner i.e, Chandrayyapeta, Srikakulam. Therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to jurisdiction is absolutely not tenable.
10. The other contention of revision petitioner is that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 6, there is no other evidence. But this objection cannot hold any water because the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is convincing and there are no contradictions or omissions in their evidence. Both trial court and appellate court have appreciated evidence of these witnesses and came to a right conclusion. I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
11. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to conviction and sentence.
12. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
13. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1879 OF 2006 Dated 16-4-2014