The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The Criminal Appeal is hled by the appellant-father of the victim questioning the Judgment dated 29.O4.2011 in Criminal appeal No. 116 of 201O (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Adilabad, wherein the Judgment dated 27.1 1.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial, Adilabad District in C.C.No.4656 of 2005 convic(ing the accused for the offences under Sections 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "lPC") was set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under: a) The victim/de-facto complainant by name Adapa Divya lodged complaint with Police, Mancherial against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 at Mantheni on 25.05.2003 and at the time of marriage her father (appellant herein) gave Rs. 1,8O,OOO/ - for gold, Rs. 1 ,OO,OOO/ - for depositing in bank, one Hero Honda motorcycle, silver articles and household articles to accused No. 1 2 towards dowry. It was alleged that after the marriage, her husband harassed her alleging that victim has committed theft of gold bracelet and cash from the possession of Accused No.1. Accused No.2 i.e., mother of accused No. 1 alleged to have converted the bed room of the victim and accused No. 1 as a common room. It was further alleged that accused No.1 used to beat the victim by demanding additionat dowry and that the accused did not even provide sufficient food to her when she was pregnant. it was further aileged that when the father of the victim came to the house of accused, the victim informed her father about the alleged harassment but after the father has left the house, the accused No.2 burnt the hand of the victim. The accused have driven away the victim from her marital home on IO.O2.2OO4 and some pamphlets were distributed with false allegations to lower the dignity of victim and her parents. Accused No. I alleged to have sent legal notice to the victim with false allegations. However, on 19.O6.2005 the uncles of accused No. 1 brought the victim to Mancherial after giving an undertaking 'that her husband and in laws will not harass her and thereby they used to reside in a rented house. But accused No. I continued his harassment under the influence of her in- laws by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. 3 b) Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.266/2005 was registered by Mancherial Police Station for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused Nos. 1 to 3. c) The tria-l Court took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos. 1 to 3, framed charges for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. d) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 got marked Exs.Pl to Pi5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating circumstances deposed by the prosecution witnesses ancl the same was denied by accused Nos.1 to 3. e) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused Nos. 1 to 3 not guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but found accused \ Nos.l to 3 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the 4 Indian Penal Code and thereby convicted them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and pay Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the 0 accused Nos.l to 3 preferred Appeal before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide CRLA No.116/2OlO, wherein conviction ' judgment dated 27 .l1 .20 10 passed by the trial court in CC No.4656/0005 was set aside and as a result the accused Nos.l to 3 were acquitted under Section 235 (1) ofthe Code of Code of Criminal Procedure. C) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.O4.2011 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal appeal No.116/2O10, the father of the victim has preferred the present Appeal to set aside the judgment dated 29 .O4.2O 1 1 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal appeal No. 116/2010 and confirm the Judgment dated 27.11.2O1O passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mancherial, Adilabad District in C.C.No.4656 of 2OO5.

4. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned Counsel for the appellant-father of the victim and Sri Dr. Surepalli Prashanth, 5 \IAP,J Assistanl Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unable to bear with the harassment of the accused, the victim after filing the complaint, committed suicide. As per Ex.P2, the victim died on 26.08.2006. Thus, securing the presence of victim for recording her evidence was not pcissible. On behalf of the victim, the prosecution examined the father of the victim as PW1, who deposed in tune with the averments of the complaint lodged by the victim to the police.

6. The iearned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in the impugned judgment observed that the report given by Adapa Divya (victim) to the police was not exhibited or marked in this case and that when the report or complaint is not exhibited or marked and when no omission or contradictions are elicited from that, the learned Magistrate ought not to have touched the contents of that complaint. But a careful perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court, it is amply evident that the complaint lodged by the victim was marked as Ex.P16 through the evidence of PW7 the investigating ofhcer. Thus, the above \ 6 observations made by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad are untenable.

7. Now the question that needs to be answered at this j.uncture is whether the contents of Ex.P16 were established by the prosecution through the evidence of other witnesses. A perusal of Ex.P16, which consists of 9 pages, discloses that the victim has made several allegations against as many as nine persons i.e., not only against the accused Nos.l to 3 but also against other members related to accused. But the Police have registered the complaint only against the husband of the victim and his parents. In Ex.P16 the victim alleged that when she was carrying fifth month pregnancy, she informed about the harassment meted by her in the hands of accused to her father, who came to the house of the accused. Whereas PWl i.e., father of the victim deposed that two months after the marriage, his daughter informed him that the accused were harassing her. The victim alleged in Ex.P16 that she along with her husband lived happily for few months after their marriage. PWI admitted in his cross examination that his daughter returned to his home aiong with accused No. 1 for three or four times after their marriage and by that time there were no disputes belween the couple. Thus, there is veracit5z in the statements of PW1 and the \ L 1 victim so far as the time of beginning of alleged harassment of accused on the victim

8. As per trx.P16, it is the specific version of the victim that the accused used to harass the victim to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. However, as per the evidence of PWl, the accused aileged to have harassed the victim for additional dowry of Rs. 1,OO,OO0/-. Thus, there is also veracit5r in the version of PW1 and his daughter with regard to quantum of additional dowry that was alleged to have been demanded by the accused.

9. PWl admitted in his cross examination that his daughter gave delivery to a male child at Peddapalli Hospital and at that time the accused came there and stayed there for some days- But as per Ex.P16, the victim averred that the accused came [o the hospital to see her son and went away.

10. One of the ailegations leveled against the accused is that the accused have necked out the victim from their house. [n the chief examination, PW1 deposed that on 19.06.2005 the accused driven away his daughter the house of accused and again he deposed that the accused necked out his daughter on 2O.O5.2OO7. On the other hand, as per Ex.P16, the victim alleged that on IO.O2.2OO4 the accused forcibly sent her in their \ I E-:-.+- 8 Maruthi Car to her parents' house. If at all the accused have necked out the victim from their house, there is no need for them to send the victim in the car. Similarly, if the victim was sent to her parents' house through car, it cannot be said that she was necked out from the house- Thus, there is no ciarity as to on which date the accused alleged to have driven out the victim from their house. It is pertinent to note that the accused has hled O.P.No.2 of 20O5 on the hle of learned Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad against the victim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. If at all the accused have driven out the victim from their house, there was no necessit5r for the accused to hle a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the victim. 1 1. Now coming to the aspect of death of the victim, it is pertinent to note that the disputes between the parties arose in the year 2OO4 and the victim died on 26.08.2006. The complaint under Ex.P16 was lodged on 30.O7.20O5. The accused No.1 also hled a petition against the victim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The father of the victim as PWl deposed that the victim died due to depression. It is the specihc evidence of PWI that the accused have dropped the victim at the residence of the victim by stating that the parents of the victim are responsible if anything happens to the victim. There is no explanation on the part of 9 PW1 as to what prompted accused to say ttrat the parents of the victim are responsible if anything happens to the victim. In the cross examination of PWl, the learned counsel for the accused gave suggestion that the victim was subjected to cruelty in the hands of PW 1 , as such, the victim took extreme step of committing suicide and that they cremated the dead body of the victim without informing any facts to accused. Though the said suggestions were denied by PWl, a strong suspicion is being created with regard to the death of the victim during her stay at her parents' house. It appears that no separate complainf is registered by the parents of the victim with regard to the death of the victim. Even as on the date of passing of the judgment by the trial Court in C.C.No.4656 of 2005 the victim had already been died but there is no specific allegation that the victim died only due to the harassment of the accused. If at all, the victim died only due to the harassment of the accused, then certainly the trial Court in the .judgment dated 27.11.2010 would have found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of abetment of suicide. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that unable to bear with the harassment of the accused, the victim committed suicide after filing of the i0 complaint. It is not the case of the prosecution that immediately after giving complaint the victim committed suicide. The victim along with her parents left the house of the accused, lodged complaint on 3O.O8.20O5 and on 26.08.2006 i.e., almost an year from the date of complaint she alleged to have committed suicide in the house of her parents. Thus, in the absence of any concrete material against the accused, the death of victim cannot be attributed against the accused.

72. Now coming to the aspect of dowry, the appellant/ PW I relied upon Ex.P4 i.e., compact disc, which was played before the triai Court. As per the visuals in Ex.P4, the 'accused also presented, silver rings, gold chain, gold ring, customary articles to the bride while performing the marriage. PWI admitted that both his daughter and son in law received all the customary articles from him. PW1 further admitted that one cannot say that items appearing in Ex.P4 are gold or silver items and that Ex.P4 hlm is not specifying the exact amount given to the couple.

13. In order to prove the alleged harassment meted out by the victim in the hands of accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW2, who was the tenant of accused No.3. PW2 deposed that accused never trarassed the victim. The prosecution \ NIGP,I also relied upon the evidence of PW4, who was the owner of the house, wherein the victim and accused No. 1 lived as tenants. In the cross examination, PW4 deposed that the parents of the victim came to Mancherial and took away the victim. This evidence of PW4 discloses that it is the parents of the victim who have taken the victim from the company of accused No.1 and that there is no trt.th in the allegation of victim that she was driven out by the accused from their house. PW9 is the wife of PW4 and she deposed that accused No. 1 and victim lived peacefully in their house and they never quarreled with edch other in their presence.

14. PW3 is one of the caste elders alleged to have been present in the panchayath held to settle the disputes between the parties. The evidence of PW3 is crucial only to t-he extent of holding panchayath between the parties and his evidence is no way relevant to arrive to a conclusion about the alleged harassment meted out by the victim in the hands of accused. PWS is the wife of PW3 and she also did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. PWs 5 and 6 are the witness examined by the prosecution to establish that the parents of the victim gave dowry to the \ \ I 12 t accused persons. However, PWs 5 ald 6 pleaded ignorance as to whether dowry was given to the accused persons

16. PW7 is the Investigating Ofhcer, who registered the case against the accused based on Ex.P16. Though the victim alleged to have enciosed certain documents in support ofher contentions in Ex.P16 to her complaint, PW7 deposed that the victim has not given any documents along with complaint. One of the . of the victim against the accused is that while dropping the victim at her residence, the accused have circulated allegations pamphlets were distributed in the village with false propaganda degrading the image of the victim and her family.' Though the victim alleged to have enclosed the said pamphlet to the complaint, PW7 admitted in his cross examination that he has not collected any document from the parents of the victim. Further, PW7 admitted that PWl, PW4, PWg, PWIO, PW3 and LW3 have not stated before him that they have witnessed quarrels between accused and the victim.

77. PW10 is the witness, who deposed that the accused harassed the victim for additional dowry and that accused have executed Ex.P4 undertaking not to harass the victim and also to return the money of one lakh rupees and gold ornaments to I ) 1i victim. In the cross examination, he admitted that accused did not demand any dowry at the time of marriage in his presence. PW10 further admitted that accused No.3 presented gante pustala, one gold ring to the victim at the time of marriage. PW 1O admitted that in Ex.P3 it was not mentioned that the accused have admitted that they have harassed the victim demanding additional dowry. PW 10 further admitted that in Ex.P3 it was not mentioned that at the demand of accused, PW1 gave some amounts to them towards dowry

18. PWll is the neighbour of accused examined to depose about the harassment of the victim in the hands of accused but he too turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose anything about the facts of the case.

19. Thus, on perusal of entire evidence relied upon by the prosecution, there is no iota of evidence to establish that the accused have demanded dowry and on such demand the parents of the victim provided dowry to the accused. Even as per Ex.p4, it appears that the parents of the accused and parents of the victim have exchanged customary articles among themselves and there is no clarity as to what rvas the exact amount or the articles that were exchanged between the parties. When there is l4 no evidence to establish that the parents of the victim gave dowry to the accused, the question of demanding additional dowry does not arise, more particularly, when there is veracity in the version of PWI and the victim with regard to the qualtum of additional dowry. 2C . Except relying on Ex.Pl photograph, there is no other oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the victim was harassed by the accused' There is no evidence to establish that Ex.P1 pertains to the hand of the victim. If at all the victim alleged to have sustained burn injuries as shown in Ex.Pl, the victim ought to have visited the hospital immediately and could have obtained some treatment or at least she could have lodged complaint before the nearest Police Station with the assistance of her father/ PW 1 . But there is no such instance. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P1 in arriving to a conclusion that the accused have committed physical harassment against the victim.

21. PWI in his cross examination admitted that accused No 1 frled a petition seeking custody of grandson of PWl before Adilabad Court. In Ex.P16 it is alleged by the victim that the accused. took the custody of the child and they were responsible \ ) for ill health of the child as they gave the child him sweets and ice creams. When the accused No. t has hled petition seeking custody of his son, it shows the love and affection he has towards his chiid and in such circumstances, it cannot be suspected that the agcused are bent upon to spoil the health to the child. Thus, the above allegation is appearing to be very vague and trivial.

22. PWl admitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 or any other family members were not living with accused No.1 and the victim at relevant point of time when the victim finally came out of the house. Thus, the question of accused Nos.2 and 3 harassing the victim also does not arise

23. It is pertinent to note that apart from the present case, the victim has hled a criminal case against the accused for the offence under Section 4O6 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, the victim also filed a case seeking maintenance from the accused. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that repeated filing of cases and complaints against a spouse can amount to 'cruelty' for the purpose of granting divorce u4der Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that the victim intends to dictate terms to the accused by fi1ing one case after the other. In other way hling cases by the victim against accused No.1 is nothing but cruelty. t6 MGP'J 24 . Except the evidence of PWs 1 , 3, 10 and other official witnesses i.e., PWs 7 and 12, all the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs 1 , 3 and 10 is hlled with contradictions and omissions and thereby their evidence cannot be acted upon to find the guilt'of the accused. There is no independent evidence to corroborate with the version of victim to establish that the accused have harassed the victim for additional dowry. Though the victim has made severdl allegations against the accused in Ex-P16, most of those allegations are vagr.re, baseless, frivolous and trivial in nature based on assumptions and presumptions. . As rightly observed by the learned t Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in the impugned judgment, the triai Court when the prosecution failed to prove the very demand for additional dowry, there is no question of Iinding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indial Penal Code. It was further observed in the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Court is not correct in disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution in respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and believing the same evidence in respect of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there is no direct and independent evidence placed by the prosecution 17 MGP,J against the accused so as to hnd them guilty of the offences leveled against them.

25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds to arrive to a conclusion that the impugned judgment passed by the passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Adilabad in Criminal appeal No.l 16 of 2OlO suffers from any illegality or irregularity enabling this Court to set aside the same. Except bringing to the notice of the court about the death of the victim during the pendency of the case before the trial court, there are no tenable grounds raised by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

26. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _ ,,_ ,:""11"-"oy= P.-ar,lo.s, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SAILESHI ry REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 The I Additional Session Judge at Adilabad (with records, if any) The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mancherial. Two CCs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Pettem Rajaiah, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies w kanr/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 \ 1 i.tE STA j- '( o 2 i tEi, ?ti25 i > * Dg + r.aGl JUDGMENT CRLA.No.730 of 2012 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL q G1(,A &* €