THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.784 of 2004 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Appellant AND G. Ramakrishna & 2 others …..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.784 of 2004 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 26.12.2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C.C.No.1041 of 1996 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
A.1 is the husband and A.2 and A.3 are the in-laws of P.W.1. Marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1 on 5.4.1991 at Nemtur of Medak District and Rs.60,000/- case along with other gold and other articles were given in the marriage towards dowry to the accused. Subsequently, when P.W.1 was blessed with a daughter, all the accused started demanding her money and on one occasion, A.1 poured kerosene on her body. Upon the complaint by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1, police registered a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against all the accused.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On behalf of defence, Ex.D.1 was marked.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 acquitted the accused of the charge.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material brought on record.
The learned trial judge at para 10 of the judgment, recorded the reasons for acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge as follows:
“10. Having considered the rival contention of learned A.P.P. and counsel for the accused, it is true from the evidence of PWs1 to 3 and PW5, PW6 apparent that the stay of P.W.1 with A2 and A3 is very much limited and that the evidence of Pws2 to 5 does not whisper any allegations against A2 and A3. Therefore, when much reference to the aspects against A2 and A3 I can consider the weight given to the fact that prosecution failed to make out the offence U/s.498-A of I.P.C. against A2 and A3. But, so-far-as the evidence in respect of A1 is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of Pws1 to 5, that Pw1 and A1 are living at different places and also there was a settlement between the parties. Further, though Pws.1,4 and 5 categorically stated that the parents of Pw1 i.e. Pws4 and 5 have provided funds for running business of A1, no proof on that aspect has been filed by the prosecution. Further as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused from the evidence of Pw1 she has filed the complaint because A1 was not coming to her and that the two independent witnesses Pws2 and 3 have not supported with regard to the harassment of accused No.1 demanding dowry except the quarrels which are common in a family. More so Pw4 who is no other than the father of Pw1 admitted that Pw1 has filed the complaint for the sake of her husband and hence, I do not consider that the evidence of Pws1 to 5 establishes the demand of additional dowry or the harassment towards Pw1. Even the investigating officer Pw7 categorically stated that no independent witnesses have stated about the demand of dowry to the accused nor she has collected any evidence to say that A1 and Pw1 were staying together after 23.10.1996. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold accused guilty for the offence U/s.498-A of I.P.C.”
As rightly observed by the trial Court there is no evidence regarding the fact that the respondents-accused subjected P.W.1 to harassment in connection with demand of additional dowry. Further it is also an admission by P.W.4, the father of P.W.1 that the present complaint is lodged by P.W.1 only for the sake of her husband. Admittedly, the evidence discloses the fact that the other two accused i.e.
A.2 and A.3 never interested in living along with A.1 and P.W.1. Further the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that she lodged the complaint only after issuance of notice for divorce by A.1. In the present, the prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of additional dowry and that such cruelty is of such a nature causing bodily injury or driving her to commit suicide. Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 15.12.2014 Tsr