THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1084 of 2008 17-10-2014 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Appellant AND Kakarlapudi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Varma And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1084 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 07.12.2006 passed in C.C.No.28 of 2006 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/A.1 to A.5 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.1, A.4 and A.5 are brothers and A.2 and A.3 are their parents. At the time of marriage of de facto complainant, P.W.1, with A.1, the mother of the complainant gave Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain and a gold ring towards dowry and gave adapaduchu katnam. At the time of marriage, A.1 was working as lace naik in CRPF. After the marriage, P.W.1, the complainant, joined A.1 to A.5 and enjoyed conjugal life for a period of 20 days. After that, A.1 went for duties leaving her with A.2 to A.5 and used to come twice in a year, and that A.2 to A.5 started harassing P.W.1 mentally and physically by saying that the dowry given by her parents is not sufficient. Thereafter, she was left in her parents’ house by A.1 at the instigation of A.2 to A.5 and that frequently, the complainant used to visit her in-law’s house and requested A.1 to allow her to stay with them, but A.1 to A.5 demanded her to bring an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. A panchayat was also held in that connection. Therefore, P.W.1 filed a complaint against A.1 to A.5 and basing on which, a case was registered against A.1 to A.5 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the case was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D1 to D.7.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
P.W.1’s evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court since she has improved her version before the Court by way of further allegations, but the same were not mentioned either in the complaint or in her Statement. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are closely related to P.W.1, wife of A.1, suffered from lot of discrepancies and also self-contradictory and contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1. It is also noted that even though it is alleged that Panchayat was also held, but the panchayatdars were not examined before the Court, to establish that the panchayat was held. The fact remains that P.W.1 herself started quarrelling with A.1 when he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.70,000/- from his GPF Account and gave the said amount to his parents on the eve of his sister’s marriage. Considering these facts and also Exs.D.1 to D.7, letters written by P.W.1 to A.1, the Court below is of the view that there was no harassment towards P.W.1 in the hands of A.1 to A.5, and as such, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused and as such, acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.10.2014 pln