HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.687 OF 2007 Dated 23-4-2014 Between:
Ellavula Bixapathi.
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.687 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 4-5-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal whereunder judgment dated 27-7-2005 in C.C.No.240 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Marriage between P.W.1 and revision petitioner was held in or about 1994 and at the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- was given as dowry besides one wrist watch, half tula gold ring and one bicycle and one fan. After marriage, P.W.1 joined A.1 and after living happily for three years, the accused started harassing her by making unlawful demand for additional dowry, she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and as she could not bare the harassment, she informed the same to her parents and subsequently, she was necked out as her parents did not fulfill the unlawful demand. After reaching her parents’ house, she approached elders and panchayats were held. A.1 married A.8 who is the daughter of A.9, and A11 and A.2 to A.7, A.9 and A.10 have opted for second marriage and as the panchayat has not yielded any feasible result, she lodged a complaint which is registered as Crime No.12 of 2002 and investigation revealed that A.1 to A.10 are liable for punishment under Sections 498-A, 494 read with 34 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On these allegations, trial is conducted during which 8 witnesses are examined and three documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and one witness is examined and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Trial court further held that prosecution failed to prove charges against A.2 to A.10 for all the offences and A.1 in respect of other charges and sentenced A.1 to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Warangal and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported and corroborated by any other witnesses for the alleged cruelty and both trial court and appellate court have erred in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. He further submitted that ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. are not at all attracted and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
5. Learned Public prosecutor submitted that for the cruelty and harassment caused to the wife in the matrimonial home, only inmates of the house would know the harassment, and here in this case, as inmates are accused, there cannot be any independent witnesses. He further submitted that circumstantial evidence of other witnesses would clearly support the evidence of P.W.1 and 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:
Admittedly, marriage of P.W.1 with the revision petitioner was performed in the year 1994. P.W.1 lodged the complaint with police on 27-1-2002 which is registered as crime No.12 of 2002 and after due investigation, charge sheet is filed and out of eight witnesses, P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is the mother of the victim, P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 are the elders for the panchayat who tried to sort out the disputes between wife and husband. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers.
8. P.W.1 in her evidence categorically deposed the way in which she was ill-treated and harassed by her husband. Her evidence is fully supported and corroborated with the contents of Ex.P.1 which also contain all the details of harassment for additional dowry. Mother of P.W.1 deposed that her daughter informed her about the harassment subjected by the husband and also about the particulars of panchayat held before the elders. The main independent witnesses are panchayatdars.
9. P.W.3 deposed in his evidence that after marriage, both P.W.1 and A.1 lived happily and thereafter, he started harassing P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and in that connection, mediation was held in his presence and two others and that they advised accused not to harass P.W.1 and not to make any unlawful demand for additional dowry. But the revision petitioner has not heeded to their advice. P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 have deposed in the same lines and corroborated with the testimony of P.W.3.
10. No doubt, P.W.3 admitted in his cross examination that P.W.2 is related to him but P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 are independent persons and they have deposed in one voice about the details of the panchayat and the advice given by them to A.1. One more panchayatdar who was given up by prosecution is examined on behalf of accused as D.W.1. He deposed that he also attended that panchayat that was held by A.1 and P.W.1 and in the cross examination, he admitted that one Narangula Iylaiah and E.Bixapathi were present. When other mediators P.Ws.3 to 6 have categorically deposed the details of panchayat, contra evidence of D.W.1 cannot be accepted without any corroboration. Both trial court and appellate court have discarded evidence of D.W.1 on this ground and I do not find any wrong in the approach of trial court and appellate court.
11. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, it is crystal clear that revision petitioner harassed P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and when she and her parents failed to fulfill his illegal demand, she was sent out from the marital house and the attempts of P.W.1 through elders have not yielded any result.
12. Considering these aspects, both the trial court and appellate court have found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below and in my view, both courts have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below.
13. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 23-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.687 OF 2007 Dated 23-4-2014 Dvs