IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 101 OF 2004 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. … Appellant-Complainant V/s. Pullaboina Mondaiah & 6-Ors. … Respondents-Accused Counsel for the Appellant : Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V. Manohar Rao The Court made the following judgment : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 101 OF 2004 JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02-5-2002 passed in CC.No. 281 of 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad district, whereby and whereunder the respondents 1 to 7 were found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 494, r/w 109 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Appeal can be summarized as follows : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Asifabad laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-7 alleging that on 27-6-1999 at 09:00 p.m., PW-1 Paka Saraiah resident of Ashoknagar, Bellampalli came to Police Station Asifabad and lodged a written complaint stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter-PW2 Rama Devi with Pullaboina Mondaiah-A1 resident of Kancharguda hamlet of Yellaram during the year 1988 in the presence of elders and gave dowry of Rs.40,000/- at Madaram Township of Tandur Mandal. A-1 and PW-2 lead martial life for some period. During their matrimonial life PW-2 was blessed with a male child. Since 1999, A-1, his father A-2, mother A-3, brothers A-4 and A-5 and sister A-6 started harassing PW-2 by beating abusing her, demanded her to bring additional dowry. The daughter of PW-1 could not bear their harassment and came to his house. PW-1 took her to inlaws house and after convincing A-1 and other family members, he left his daughter there and requested them not to harass his daughter-PW2. In spite of this, A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 continued their harassment and insisted his daughter to bring additional dowry under threat of getting a second marriage and A-1 attempted to commit murder of PW-2 by pouring kerosene. On the hue and cries of PW-2, neighbours who gathered there rescued her and on knowing about the incident he brought his daughter to his house and later he came to know that A-1 got married one Yetakari Jyothi daughter of Ramaiah resident of Rallapeta on 18-6-1999 during the life time of PW-2. On the strength of the report, a case in Cr.No. 48/99 was registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 494 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 20-7-1999 A-1 was arrested and sent to the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by showing A-2 to A-7 as absconding. Thus, the investigation established that A-1 committed offences punishable under section 498-A, 494 and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and whereas A-2 to A-6 have committed offences punishable under section 498-A read with section 109 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and A-7 committed offence under section 494 of IPC. 3. On appearance of the A-1 to A-7 the learned Magistrate complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and upon hearing the counsel for the accused and Asst.Police Prosecuting Officer, A-1 to A-7 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. A-1 to A-7 denied the same. Charge under section 498-A of IPC against A-1 to A-6, 494 IPC against A-1 and A-7 and 494 read with 109 IPC against A-2 to A- 6 and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A-1 to A-6 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of A-1 to A-7 no oral evidence was adduced but marked Exs.D1 to D3. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-7 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. A-1 to A-7 denied the same and stated that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 is false. 7. After hearing both sides, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found A-1 to A7 not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 494, r/w 109 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7. 9. The allegation in the complaint before the trial Court is that all the respondents have harassed PW-2 wife of A-1 by demanding additional dowry on one occasion or the other. On one occasion, all the respondents poured kerosene and tried to set her fire and thereafter she returned to her maternal home and lived with her parents. After 2 ½ years, A-1 married another lady. Therefore, PW-1 lodged a complaint on behalf of PW-2 for the offences referred to hereinabove. 10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Among them, PW-1 is the father of PW-2, PW-2 is the wife of A-1. PWs 1 and 2 deposed regarding the fact of marriage and subsequent to the marriage. PWs 1 and 2 stated regarding harassment made by the respondents 1 to 7 in this case. After scrutinizing and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 to 7. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the manner in which the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Being 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be fatal to the case of prosecution and further submitted that there is no need of any independent witness to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 being it is matrimonial offence, for which, there is no possibility to adduce any independent witness. 12. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that in the year 1996 the accused poured kerosene over PW-2 and tried to lit fire. Whereas PW-1 informed the Court that all the accused joined together and poured kerosene on PW-2. Whereas PW-2 deposed before the Court that A-1 poured kerosene and after that she was ran away from husband and that scene was witnesses by Bhemanna and he informed the same and subsequently she left the matrimonial home. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Bheema was not examined. There is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in connection with the said occurrence and further submitted that if at all there was occurrence as alleged by PWs 1 and 2 hereinabove with the said occurrence. He further submitted that if at all there was occurrence as alleged by PWs-1 and 2 then he would have lodged complaint in the year 1997 itself. Whereas aggrieved over the information given by some of the villagers that A-1 married another lady and they lodged the present complaint before the court in order to wreck vengeance against the respondents 1 to 7 herein. 14. This Court perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate after evaluating all the evidence acquitted A-1 to A-7. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances, there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The non-examination of Bheema, who is said to be a person to whom PW-2 immediately informed regarding the incident which necessitated her to leave matrimonial home. The non-examination of Investigating Officer is also one of the factor. There is no evidence to prove that A-1 married another lady and that there is no witness to the said occurrence. Except PWs 1, 2 and 3 all the witnesses turned hostile. Hence, on the above stated grounds, the learned Magistrate acquitted A-1 to A-7. It is well settled law that when two views are possible and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and one view which is in favour of the accused, as considered by the trial court, A-1 to A7 are acquitted for the said offences. There is no need to interfere with the said judgment. Hence, this Court is of the view that the present judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is not necessary to be interfered with. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 101 OF 2004 Circulation No. 134 Date:24-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master : I s L