HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1453 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014 Between:
Jangapally Sujatha.
And:
..Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through SHO, PS, Godavarikhani, I-Town, Karimnagar District and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1453 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 20-8-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani, whereunder respondents 2 to 5 herein are acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Godavarikhani filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 5 herein alleging that marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 was performed on 23-3-1998 and that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and six tulas of gold was given as dowry and they both lead happy marital life for three years and later, A.1 and in- laws of P.W.1 started harassing her due to infertility and demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the process manhandled her and necked out her from her marital home and on the report of P.W.1, police registered Cr.No.223 of 2005 and investigation reveled that respondent 2 to 5 have committed offences under sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
On these allegations, five witnesses are examined and two documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and four witnesses are examined and four documents are marked on behalf of accused.
On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charges under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred by the complainant-de facto complainant.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is supported and corroborated with P.W.4 a circumstantial witness and her relatives P.Ws.2 and 3 but the trial court has not accepted the said evidence on the ground that they have no knowledge. He further submitted that P.W.1 being victim, deposed about harassment caused to her and since the offence would be within four walls of the house, there cannot be any eye witnesses and when the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing and acceptable, acquitting the accused on the ground that her evidence is not supported by any other witnesses is incorrect and trial court committed error in acquitting the accused i.e., respondents 2 to 5 herein.
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, P.W.1 and A.1 lived together three years happily after the marriage and thereafter, she was harassed by A.1 to A.4 and insisted her to bring additional dowry and on that, she gave a complaint and out of five witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the victim-complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the grandmother of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is a circumstantial witness and P.W.5 is Investigating Officer. As against them, four witnesses are examined on behalf of accused. D.Ws.1 and 2 are co-tenants of the house in which P.W.1 and A.1 lived. D.W.3 is a mediator, who held panchayat for the disputes between wife and husband. D.W.4 is A.1 himself. Out of five prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 4 have no personal knowledge and they came to know about alleged harassment only through P.W.1.
Admittedly, P.W.1 filed M.C. against A.1 and in that, she gave evidence and her earlier evidence in M.C.No.12 of 2006 is marked as Ex.D.2 in this case, which clearly disclose that in the earlier statement i.e., evidence in M.C., she has not referred to any of these alleged incident. So also, P.W.2 was also examined in the earlier M.C. and her deposition is marked as Ex.D.4. Added to this, tenants who are examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice deposed that there were no disputes between P.W.1 and A.1 and that A.1 never abused P.W.1 and he never beat her. This evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of elder who conducted panchayat for the disputes between P.W.1 and A.1. D.W.3 clearly deposed that A.1 never abused P.W.1 and A.1 never beat her. This evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is supported and corroborated with the elder who conducted panchayat for the dispute between P.W.1 and A.1 and whose evidence is supported and corroborated with the mediation held on 15-9-2004.
Considering this part of evidence, learned trial judge held that charges leveled against respondents 2 to 5 are not duly proved and acquitted them.
On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the trial court on any of the material aspects. On the other hand, learned trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and there are absolutely 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 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1453 OF 2007 Dated 1-9-2014 Dvs