HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.903 OF 2004 Date: 26-07-2011 Between: K. Naga Narasimha Rao. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ A-1. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.903 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Petitioner- Accused No.1 against judgment, dated 31-05-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2002 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku, West Godavari District, preferred against conviction and sentences imposed in Sessions Case No.197 of 1997 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku. 2. The Revision Petitioner is A-1 in the Sessions Case No. 197 of 1997 and appellant in the Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2002. He along with his parents i.e., A-2 and A-3 were prosecuted in the Sessions Case for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C., whereas after due trial the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku, acquitted A-2 and A-3 in the case under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences and convicted A-1 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the payment of fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., vide judgment, dated 16-10-2002, whereas against the said conviction and sentences, the first Accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2002, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tanuku, West Godavari District which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentences. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Petitioner/A- 1. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in Sessions Case No.197 of 1997. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Revision may be stated as follows : The first accused married the deceased namely Lakshmi Mangatayaru on 18-06-1987. At the time of marriage, the father of the deceased gave Ac.1.50 cents of land, cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and one Bajaj Scooter to A-1 and 16 sovereigns of gold to the deceased. A-1 harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry following which her father gave Refrigerator, Videocon T.V., Double cot and cash of Rs.50,000/- to him. They lived happily for about nine years and during their wedlock they begot two male children aged 5 years and 7 years by the date of filing the charge sheet in the case. However, later A-1 along with his parents i.e., A-2 and A-3 harassed her for want of additional amount of Rs.50,000/- and the deceased informed the same to her parents who expressed that they were not in a position to pay the amount. Thereafter, A-1 threatened the deceased proclaiming that he would kill her and also threatened her parents for want of additional dowry. As part of the harassment, A-1 also used to beat her and further she used to inform about the harassment to her parents from time to time. Further, because of the attitude of A-1, she took her children to her parents for their safe custody. Further, unable to bear the harassment on 24-04-1996 she left the house and committed suicide by falling in a water tank and drowning in water. 5. On behalf of the Prosecution PW.s 1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 and MO.s 1 to 6 were marked and on behalf of the defense DW.1 was examined and Exs. D-1 to D-6 were marked. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 that PW.1 who is brother of the deceased clearly deposed in his cross-examination that there were no misunderstandings between them and A-1 to A-3 till the death of her sister and the amount given by them was deposited in the names of the deceased and also A-1 but he did not know the maturity date of those deposits and he also deposed that A-1 handed over the deposit receipts, share certificates and agreement to mediators after the death of her sister and the mediators handed over the same to them and further it in the evidence of PW.2, another brother of the deceased that they gave cash to A-1 to purchase scooter but he applied for loan from a bank and purchased the scooter and A-1 informed them that some fixed deposits were there in the names of the deceased and A-1 and therefore their evidence clearly show that there were no disputes between A-1 and the deceased and further PW.7 father of the deceased and PW.11 sister of the deceased gave untrustworthy evidence and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is also inconsistent and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore the conviction and sentences imposed against A-1 by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. The points for consideration for the purpose of the Revision are : 1) Whether the prosecution placed good evidence about the charges levelled against the first accused? 2) Whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the Courts below are tenable or not? 8. Point No.1: PWs. 1 and 2 brothers of the deceased, PW.3 paternal uncle of the deceased, PW.7 father of the deceased, PW.11 sister of the deceased and PWs. 12 and 13 brothers of the deceased by courtesy deposed in accordance with the prosecution version. PWs. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 examined to speak about the harassment of the deceased did not support the prosecution version and therefore they were declared as hostile witnesses of the prosecution. 9. PW.7-father of the deceased deposed in accordance with the prosecution version by and large. It is also deposed by him that A-1 wanted to purchase a house site at Hyderabad and three months prior to the death of the deceased A-1 approached him at his house and asked him to provide Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to his sister for which he pleaded his inability to do so, but however, he promised to give some amount following which A-1 harassed the deceased and two months prior to the death of the deceased, she came to their house and informed them that A-1 was ill-treating her to bring money and one month prior to her death, he gave cash of Rs.50,000/- to A-1 but A-1 insisted to pay the remaining amount for which also he expressed his inability. He further deposed that 10 days prior to the death of the deceased, she came to his house along with her children and informed about the ill-treatment of A-1 to bring cash from him and later she left the children in his house and went back to her matrimonial house and on the second day, he went to the house of A-1 and questioned him about the ill-treatment of the deceased and then A-1 demanded him to give the gold articles of his daughter, which he refused along with his daughter. Further, he deposed that two days prior to the death of the deceased, A-1 telephoned to him and informed that they would see the dead body of their daughter unless the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid. On the other hand, PWs. 1 to 3 and 11 deposed similarly. 10. But PW.1 deposed in his cross-examination that disputes arose between the deceased and A-1 about 1 ½ years after their marriage, but he does not know the nature of the disputes. So it proves that there was cordiality between them for 1-½ months after the marriage. He also deposed in his cross-examination they used to go to the house of the Accused and the accused used to visit their house during the lifetime of the deceased and there were no misunderstandings between them and the deceased till the death of the deceased and the amount given by them was deposited in a bank in the names of the deceased and also A-1 and the corresponding deposit receipts were with A-1 and there were also share certificates worth Rs.40,000/- and an agreement executed by Lakshmi Priya Township, Hyderabad, all of which were handed over to them by A-1 and further articles given to the deceased were handed over to them by mediators after the death of the deceased. Further, he also deposed that they did not give any report to the police against the accused on the ground that they were harassing the deceased. This evidence of PW.1 is quite against the other evidence adduced with regards to the harassment of the deceased. In fact, it throws lot of doubt about the so-called harassment of the deceased by the accused. If there was real harassment of the deceased by the accused, such cordiality as spoken to by PW.1 would not have existed at all. Further, in such circumstances the brothers and parents of the deceased would have taken necessary measures to conduct mediation before elders to sort out her problems or give report to the police for taking necessary action against the accused and when it appears that such steps were not taken against the accused, an ad verses inference can be drawn. No reason is given as to why PW.1 gave evidence against the prosecution version to that effect and therefore the same is to be taken into consideration totally. 11. Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PW.1 the evidence of the other witnesses who spoke in support of the prosecution version is difficult to be accepted. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 12. The Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 in his cross-examination properly and mainly basing upon the other evidence recorded with regards to the harassment of the deceased imposed the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are to be set aside. In the result, the Revision is allowed accordingly setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below and acquitting A-1 of the charge. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26h July, 2011. Dsh/Da. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 230 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.903 OF 2004 July, 26, 2011 DSH