HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.885 OF 2007 Dated 24-7-2014 Between:
S.Kamar Taj.
And:
Petitioner.
S.B.Subhahan and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.885 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 26-3- 2002 in C.C.No.182 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler, Chittoor District.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspect of Police, Vayalpad filed charge sheet against respondents 1 to 6 herein alleging that marriage between revision petitioner herein and first respondent herein was performed on 19-7-1997 at Gurramkonda and at the time of marriage, gold and money was given by parents of the revision petitioner. Both revision petitioner and first respondent herein led marital life, during which, a female child was born on 13-7-1998 and subsequently, respondents 1 to 6 started harassing the revision petitioner and insisting her to bring more dowry on the pretext of sending first respondent to Saudi. Respondents 1 to 6 demanded cash of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and that revision petitioner suffered harassment in the hands of respondents 1 to 6. While so, on 21-2-1999 in the evening, respondents 1 to 6 poured kerosene on revision petitioner and made an attempt to kill her and subsequently on 2-3-1999, first respondent brought the revision petitioner in a jeep from Madanapalle and dropped her at her parents house as she failed to fulfill their demand. On the report of revision petitioner, Crime No.16 of 1999 was registered and after investigation, it is found that the respondents 1 to 6 are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined eight witnesses and marked four documents on behalf of prosecution and examined four witnesses and marked Exs.D.1 to D.3 on behalf of accused. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge leveled against respondents 1 to 6 and acquitted them for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, de facto complainant/victim (P.W.1) filed the present revision.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is clear evidence to prove the attempt made on the life of P.W.1 on 21-2-1999 and also for the incident dated 2-3-1999, on which date, first respondent brought P.W.1 in a jeep and dropped her at Gurramkonda and the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of independent witnesses-P.Ws.5 to 7 who clearly stated about the incident dated 2-3-1999. It is further submitted that the evidence of victim is clearly supported and corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses but the trial court relying on discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused persons and therefore, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, advocate for respondents 1 to 6 submitted that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and considering those discrepancies and also the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused, trial court found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy and extended benefit of doubt to the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court.
Learned Public Prosecutor supported the submissions of advocate for revision petitioner.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgment of the court below is legal, proper and correct?
POINT:
According to prosecution, respondents 1 to 6 caused harassment to the revision petitioner after the birth of a female child and insisted her to bring additional dowry. Eight witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. First respondent is husband of revision petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are in-laws of revision petitioner, respondent No.4 is younger brother of A.1, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are relatives of A.1. So far as the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are concerned, P.W.1 is the complainant- victim, P.Ws.2 and 3 are her parents, P.W.4 is her brother, P.Ws.5 to 7 are residents of Gurramkonda who witnessed A.1 dropping P.W.1 at Gurramkonda on 2-3-1999. So far as witnesses examined on behalf of accused is concerned, D.Ws.1 and 2 are A.1 and A.4 respectively. D.W.3 is a resident of Madanapalli who was staying opposite to the marital home where A.1 and P.W.1 resided. D.W.4 is a practicing advocate at Madanapalli. One contradiction Ex.D.1 is marked during evidence of P.W.1. One of the defence of the accused is that A.1 pronounced talak to the victim and on 20-2-
1999 and a notice was also issued to that effect and to prove the same, D.W.4 is examined. Though revision petitioner contended that she was subjected to harassment in the matrimonial home, prosecution has not examined any neighbours. On defence side, a person residing opposite to the house of matrimonial home is examined and he deposed that there was no harassment. According to the complainant, there was an incident on 21-2-1999 whereunder an attempt was made on her life. Admittedly, no report is given in respect of that alleged incident. Even though P.W.1 alleged that she was humiliated and suffered harassment in the hands of respondents 1 to 6 from 13-7-1998, there was no complaint of any kind till 6-3- 1999. There was no explanation for this inordinate delay leave alone acceptable explanation.
The main contention of advocate for revision petitioner is that P.Ws.5 to 7 are independent witnesses and the trial court has not considered their evidence. According to complainant on 2-3-1999, A.1 dropped her at Gurramkonda and while he was dropping, P.Ws.5 to 7 witnessed it. According to their evidence, while they were going through the street, they observed that A.1 brought P.W.1 and left her at her parental house. To that extent, their evidence can be accepted as natural but they went to the extent of saying that while dropping, A.1 demanded P.W.1 to bring an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), otherwise, he will not allow her to come and join with him. Trial judge observed that this particular version cannot be accepted because persons passing on the road and hearing such words are quite unnatural. I do not find any wrong in discarding evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 and the trial judge rightly observed as to the trustworthiness of these witnesses. As seen from the evidence on record, according to P.W.1 while dropping her, at her parents house on 2-3-1999, A.1 demanded for an additional dowry of Rs.1,00.000/-( Rupees one lakh only) whereas P.Ws.5 to 7 stated that they heard A.1 demanding P.W.1 to come with an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakhs only). This aspect would clearly disclose the unnaturality as to the presence of these three witnesses. Further, when the evidence on record would disclose that a talak was pronounced on 20-2-1999 and notice was also given to that effect, dropping P.W.1 at her parents house on 2-3-1999 would clearly create a doubt as to the correctness of statement of P.Ws.5 to 7. Learned trial judge has elaborately discussed the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion. I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial court.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court in acquitting respondents 1 to 6 by extending benefit of doubt.
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 24-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.885 OF 2007 Dated 24-7-2014