THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.848 of 2014 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 of 2014 -10-2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.848 of 2014 BETWEEN:
Peta Gayatri Sai Lakshmi Koteswari.
…..Appellant/De facto complainant AND The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
AND …..Respondents CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 of 2014 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Appellant AND Peta Vamsidhar and others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.848 of 2014 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal and the revision are arising out of one and the same judgment and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Crl.A.No.848 of 2014 is filed by the de facto complainant and Crl.R.C.No.1604 of 2014 is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 18.7.2011 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari, in Crl.A.No.100 of 2010, whereby the learned Additional District Judge set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on accused Nos.1 to 3 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothapeta in S.C.No.146 of 2008, vide judgment dated 17.3.2010 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and acquitted them for the said charges.
3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution before the trial court are as under:
(a) P.W.2-Kanithi Satyanarayana and P.W.3-Kanithi Nagamani are the husband and wife and they are the residents of Ubalanka village and they are the parents of P.W.1-Peta Gayatri Sai Lakshmi Koteswari. A1 is the husband of P.W.1 and A2 and A3 are the parents of A1 and they are residents of Visakhapatnam.
(b) The marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 on 10.8.2006 according to Hindu Customs and rites. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry, 20 tulas of gold items, Rs.20,000/- towards adapaduchulanchanam and Rs.30,000/- value sare samans to the accused. Since the date of joining, A1 to A3 used to harass her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- as demanded by the accused. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the accused. Moreover, A2 to A4 threatened P.W.1 that they would perform another marriage to A1, and demanded her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry and threatened that she could not enter matrimonial home without that amount, and necked her out from their house. As there is no other go, P.W.1 came to her parents’ house. As P.W.1 vexed with her matrimonial life, she decided to commit suicide. But due to intervention of elders again she had taken to her in-laws’ house, even then also there is no change in the attitude of the accused. Meanwhile, P.W.1 became pregnant. But A1 attributed malafides against her and harassed her physically and mentally and at last, P.W.1 was necked out from the house. As there is no other go, P.W.1 reached her parents’ house at Ubalanka. While the matter stood thus, week days prior to 12.12.2007, A1 to A3 came to Ubalanka and demanded that unless additional dowry amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid, they would not be allowed to lead conjugal life with A1. When P.Ws.5 and 6 were trying to pacify the matter, A1 took P.W.1 inside the house, fisted her and squeezed her neck firmly uttering that he would kill her and so threatening A1 pushed her forcibly, as a result, P.W.1 fell on the floor. By that time, she was carrying 9th month pregnancy. Due to fall on the ground, she was unable to bear pain in abdomen. At that time, A1 proclaimed in sarcastic manner that P.W.1 did not get the pregnancy through him and that if P.W.1 and baby in the womb die, he would get rid of them. While threatening so, A1 to A3 left the house. A1 voluntarily caused miscarriage to P.W.1 and also pushed her against the floor knowing that she was carrying 9th month pregnancy and that the act is likely to cause death of an unborn child. On 12.12.2007, P.W.1 was suffering with severe pain in the stomach. As such, P.Ws.2 and 3 had taken her to the hospital of P.W.7, who informed that due to the injury on the stomach, the unborn child died in the womb. The same was informed to A1 over phone. But he paid deaf ear. On 14.12.2007, P.W.1 lodged a complaint to Ravulapalem police, who in turn registered the same as a case. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
4. The learned trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 498-A IPC against A1 to A3 and Section 316 IPC against A1, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. But Exs.D1 to D6 were marked on their behalf.
6. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court having found A1 not guilty for the offence under Section 316 IPC, acquitted him. However, the trial Court found A1 to A3 guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, convicted and sentenced them as follows:
1) A1 to A3 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months each under each head i.e., Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A IPC;
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal viz., Crl.A.No.100 of 2010 before the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the de facto complaint and the State preferred the present appeal and the revision.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-de facto complainant contended that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6, who are independent witnesses and that the evidence on record clearly establishes the case of the prosecution and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. But the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court warrants interference by this Court.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondents-accused contended that the lower appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and that the evidence of P.W.1 is very inconsistent with her report and she suppressed all the facts and falsely implicated in the above case. Therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is :
“Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court warrants interference by this Court?”
10. The material on record shows that the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act mainly on the ground that P.W.1 has narrated all the incidents happened from the date of her joining with her husband at Visakhapatnam till she reached her parents’ house and about her consuming sleeping pills with an intention to commit suicide and also about ill-treatment and harassment made by her husband and parents’-in- law and that her evidence is corroborated by that of her parents and also P.Ws.4 to 6 with regard to their mediation.
11. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and on re-appreciation of the evidence, the lower appellate Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
a) From the evidence of P.W.1, it is obvious that A1 before settlement of marriage agreed to marry her on the ground that she is a beautiful woman, though her father was not having any properties.
b) P.W.2 also admitted that the accused are having good financial position and agreed for marriage with P.W.1 as P.W.1 is a good looking girl, without demanding any dowry from them. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is obvious that the accused did not take any dowry amount at the time of marriage nor made any demand for additional dowry after marriage from P.Ws.2 and 3.
c) P.W.1 categorically admitted in her evidence that in the month of April, 2007, she came to her parents’ house and then only, she came to know that she became pregnant and since then, till the date of her evidence, she did not visit the house of A1 to A3. This piece of evidence falsifies her version as to the dowry harassment made by the accused even prior to her complaint.
d) In Ex.P1 P.W.1 simply mentioned the date of her marriage as 8.8.2006 and since the date of her marriage, her husband, in laws and sister-in-law used to harass her physically and mentally for additional dowry. Even her 161 Cr.P.C. statement is silent as to the period from which, the accused started to harass her for additional dowry.
e) P.W.1 appears to have led happy marital life with A1 by visiting Tirupathi and other places for a period of three months after marriage and during that period there was no whisper at all nor any complaint made to her parents as to the alleged harassment, though she was on touch with her parents over phone every day.
f) The main reason that is apparent on record for estrangement between A1 and P.W.1 was that A1 has been suspecting the fidelity of P.W.1 for getting pregnancy and that P.W.1 came to know about her pregnancy during her stay in her parents’ house and the same was informed to the accused and since then, she did not visit her in-laws’ house.
g) Even if it is presumed that P.W.1 has consumed sleeping tablets due to unbearable harassment made by A1 to A3, while she was staying at her in-laws’ house at Visakhapatnam and she made an attempt to commit suicide, without disclosing the harassment to P.W.2 and P.W.3 under the impression that P.Ws.2 and 3 have already contacted debts for performance of marriage, nothing would prevent them to report the matter to the police about the alleged harassment given by the accused to P.W.1. If really, P.W.1 has swallowed sleeping pills, atleast the doctor would have informed the same to Ravulapalem police. But there are no such instances brought to light by the prosecution to show the bonafides of P.Ws.1 to 3. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not trustworthy.
h) Further P.W.1 was got admitted in the hospital of P.W.7 on 12.12.2007 for delivery. According to P.W.7, P.W.1 was discharged on 20.12.2007, whereas P.W.1 was said to have gone to the police station and presented Ex.P1 report to the police on 14.12.2007. The evidence of P.W.7 does not disclose that P.W.1 was permitted to go to the police station from the hospital during her treatment. These circumstances give rise to doubt the veracity in the case of the prosecution.
i) On perusal of Ex.P1-report, it is apparent that it did not bear the signature of the concerned Magistrate. But Ex.P6 FIR is having some signature without any seal of the concerned officer, who received it. All the 161 Cr.P.C. statements were prepared in the police station. It appears that the entire investigation was cooked up in the police station. As per the evidence of P.W.11, Senior Clerk in the Court Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothapeta went to Visakhapatnam and Ex.P1 and P6-FIR were submitted to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kothapeta. The said Mandal Executive Magistrate has not affixed his signature or seal on Ex.P1, but he affixed his signature on Ex.P6-FIR without seal.
j) P.W.12, Deputy Tahsildar, categorically stated that the then Tahsildar had affixed his initial on Ex.P6, but not on Ex.P1. Exs.P1 and P6 were brought into existence conveniently through P.W.8 and got inserted into the court record even without knowledge of the concerned Head Clerk or Magistrate and also there are no signatures even till that day.
k) Further there are number of omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. But the trial Court bluntly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and convicted the accused.
12. It is settled proposition that the jurisdiction of the appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitations that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the Court below to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality, or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. It is also settled that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case i.e., one pointing out the guilt of the accused and other pointing out his innocence, the latter view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
13. Bearing the above principles in mind, this Court perused the entire evidence and the findings of both the Courts below. On a careful analysis of the evidence of P.W.1, it is apparent that her evidence is very inconsistent and it does not inspire any confidence of this Court. Though P.W.1 in her chief examination has narrated all the incidents happened from the date of her joining with her husband at Visakhapatnam till she reached her parents’ house, but her cross-examination itself falsifies the entire case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has not established the case as projected by the prosecution.
14. On careful perusal of the findings of the lower appellate Court, this Court has not found any perversity, illegality or irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the judgment under appeal and in appreciation of the evidence by the lower appellate Court for holding that the accused are not guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the D.P. Act.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion on all factual and legal aspects, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal as well as the revision case and hence, both the cases are liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal as well as Crl.R.C are dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Justice Raja Elango Dated: 6.11.2014 Nn.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.848 of 2014 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 of 2014 6.11.2014 Nn.