HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.986 OF 2007 Dated 2-9-2014 Between:
Gotivada Ramana Murthy and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.986 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 10-7-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikaklulam whereunder judgment dated 16-2-2004 in C.C.No.460 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru filed charge sheet against revision petitioners alleging that first petitioner is husband of P.W.1 and their marriage was performed as per Hindu Customs and Rituals and they lived happily for one year and one male child was born and thereafter, A.1 started ill-treating P.W.1. On 12-3-2001, all the accused beat P.W.1 and sent her to her parents house to Hiramandalam and on the report of P.W.1, police registered crime No.55 of 2001 and investigation revealed that all the accused harassed P.W.1 and committed offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. On these allegations, six witnesses are examined and seven documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer one year imprisonment by each accused with a fine of Rs.2,000/- by each accused. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence against all the accused. Aggrieved by which, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that the alleged incident was on 12-3-2001 and 7-11-2001 but the F.I.R. is given nine days after the alleged second incident and there is no explanation for this long delay. He further submitted that even in F.I.R. and in evidence of P.W.1, the main allegation is against husband i.e., A.1, and there is no specific allegation against A.2 to A.4 but both courts convicted the other accused i.e., A.2 to A.4 also on bald allegations. He further submitted that from the evidence, it is clear that A.2 to A.4 are living separately and according to P.W.1, they instigated A.1 to commit the offence but there is absolutely no evidence for the alleged instigation. He further submitted that no independent witnesses are examined and no villagers are examined for the alleged instigation but both the courts without any material convicted A.2 to A.4 also.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that delay is not at all fatal and as it is a continuous offence and the objection of revision petitioner is not tenable. He further submitted that according to Ex.P.1, the report was given on 7-11-2001 i.e., on the date of second incident but there was delay in registration of F.I.R. for which victim cannot be penalized. He further submitted that both courts rightly appreciated evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the court below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
There is no dispute with regard to marriage between
P.W.1 and A.1. According to P.W.1, she was looked after well for about one year after the marriage and thereafter, A.1 started harassing her and on some occasion, she was beaten. A.2 is mother-in-law of P.W.1, A.3 is paternal aunt of A.1 and A.4 is uncle of A.1.
As seen from evidence of P.W.1, the allegation against these three i.e., A.2 to A.4 is that A.1 was instigated by these three and on their instigation, he used to harass P.W.1.
Admittedly, A.2 to A.4 are staying separately and they are not residing with A.1 and P.W.1. When such is the case, there must be positive evidence to show that there was active participation of these three in instigating A.1. Out of six witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the victim,
P.W.2 is the mother of victim, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the elders before whom, the matter was placed for settlement. P.W.5 is the police constable who received the report of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer.
The entire evidence of P.W.1 is against her husband i.e., A.1. Except referring the relationship of A.2 to A.4 with A.1 and stating that they instigated A.1, she has not stated anything further against these three. She deposed that A.1 and A.4 promised before elders that they would see that she would be looked after well. P.W.2 is not a direct witness and she is only mother of P.W.1 and according to her evidence, she came to know about alleged harassment through P.W.1. P.W.3 deposed that police called him to the police station and that he went to police station on the request of A.1. He further deposed that no settlement took place and that he does not know about the disputes between complainant and A.1. So practically his evidence is of no use to support the prosecution version. P.W.4 is a member of M.P.T.C. and he deposed that he and one Ramarao who is uncle of P.W.1 settled the matter between P.W.1 and A.1 and as per their advise, P.W.1 was sent back with A.1 and that A.3 assured that he will look after the welfare of P.W.1. He deposed that P.W.1 informed him that A.1 to A.4 beat her but P.W.1 has not stated anything in her evidence that A.2 to A.4 beat her. At a latter stage, P.W.4 admitted that the actual dispute was between A.1 and P.W.1. The other two witnesses are police officials.
So, on a reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there is no whisper about the role of A.2 to A.4 attracting ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C.
As rightly pointed out by advocate for revision petitioners, the entire evidence of complainant and the allegations in the F.I.R. are against A.1 i.e., first petitioner and only bald allegation of instigation is made against the remaining accused. Both trial court and appellate court without any evidence convicted A.2 to A.4 on the bald statement of P.W.1 that they instigated A.1. to beat her and ask her to bring additional dowry. But her statement is not supported by any evidence either by direct or circumstantial and therefore, relying on bald statement, convicting family members of husband who are not residing with the wife and husband, is illegal and amount to wrong appreciation of evidence and law.
So far as A.1 is concerned, there is ample evidence which is cogent and convincing and both the courts were right in convicting A.1.
For these reasons, I am of the view that trial court and appellate court were right in convicting husband i.e., A.1 but they were wrong in convicting A.2 to A.4 i.e., relatives of A.1 and therefore, conviction and sentence against A.1 has to be confirmed whereas conviction and sentence against A.2 to A.4 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this Revision Case is allowed in respect of A.2 to A.4 and dismissed in respect of A.1. The fine amount paid by A.2 to A.4 shall be refunded.
The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend A.1 to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 2-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.986 OF 2007 Dated 2-9-2014