THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.743 OF 2003 DATED: 25-03-2010 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And Uddaraju Srinivasa Raju & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22-10-2002, in C.C.No.157 of 1999 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, wherein the respondents herein-A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and were acquitted thereof under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents-A1 to A3. Perused the records. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The marriage of P.W.1-complainant with A1 took place on 23-06-1994 at Bhimavaram. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. At the time of marriage, Rs.40,000/- was given to A1 as dowry besides Rs.10,000/- as lanchanam for the inlaws and Rs.5000/- towards other lanchanams. After the marriage, P.W.1 joined A1 at the matrimonial home. Subsequently A1, with the support of A2 and A3, started harassing P.W.1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and subjecting her to torture and ultimately in the year 1999 P.W.1 was necked out of the house. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the police, which was registered as Cr.No.24 of 1999 by Kalla police station for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC. On 13-05-1999 A1 to A3 were arrested and were sent for remand. 4. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 498-A IPC was held against them for which they pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The accused examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.D1 to D7. 6. P.W.1 is the complainant herself; P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1; P.W.3 is the relative of P.W.1 and P.Ws.4 and 5 are brothers of A2. P.W.6 is a taxi driver and a neighbour of the accused. P.W.7, the then Sub Inspector of police, Kalla police station took up investigation and P.W.8, the then Head Constable registered the First Information Report-Ex.P9 based on the complaint-Ex.P7. 7. In support of their defence, the accused examined D.Ws.1 and 2, who are their neighbours and also marked Exs.D1 to D7. 8. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate held that there is absolutely no evidence of establishing any harassment or cruelty against P.W.1 in connection with the demand for additional dowry in terms of Section 498-A IPC and therefore the ingredients of the said offence are not attracted. Accordingly, A1 to A3 were found not guilty and were acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present appeal. 9. It is not disputed that the marriage of P.W.1 with A1 was performed on 23-06-1994 at Bhimavaram and after the marriage P.W.1 and A1 lived together happily in the matrimonial home along with A1’s parents-A2 and A3. The evidence on record shows that for about five years after the marriage there were no disputes and they lived happily till 1999. According to the prosecution, not satisfied with the dowry and lanchanams, totalling Rs.55,000/- paid at the time of marriage, the accused have been demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. One year after the marriage the said amount was paid by the father of P.W.1 and two years later the accused again demanded for another sum of Rs.20,000/- for purchasing land and P.W.1 wrote a letter to her father to send the said amount and her father sent the same through her brother- in-law-Satyanarayanaraju. There is nothing on record to show that the father of P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, each on two occasions prior to 1999. Neither the father of P.W.1 nor his brother-in-law-A.Satyanarayanaraju is examined to prove the said payment of Rs.20,000/- to the accused. 10. Admittedly, at the time of the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- on two occasions towards additional dowry, no complaint was made by P.W.1 to anyone or to the police alleging that she was subjected to any cruelty or ill- treatment for the said demand by the accused and because of such harassment only the amounts came to be paid by the father of P.W.1. Even according to the evidence of the prosecution, the accused demanded the said amounts for purchase of land and P.W.1 wrote letters-Exs.P1 and P2 to her father conveying the said demand and the father of P.W.1 complied with the same. 11. There is nothing on record to show that whether the said demand for payment of Rs.20,000/- was towards additional dowry or that the said demand accompanied by any acts of cruelty or ill-treatment, which compelled the father of P.W.1 to comply with the demands and pay the amounts. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the failure to examine the father of P.W.1, who is stated to have received the letters from P.W.1 and paid the amounts in compliance thereof, and the non-examination of A.Satyanarayanaraju through whom the second payment of Rs.20,000/- is said to have been made, is fatal to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that P.W.1 was subjected to any acts of cruelty or ill-treatment by the accused in connection with the said demand. Even as per the prosecution version, the accused asked P.W.1 to arrange for payment of money by her father for purchase of land and the land was in fact purchased with the said amounts. The disputes between A1 and P.W.1 appeared to have cropped up in 1998 for the first time when A1 sold away the extent of Ac.0.45 cents of land for discharge of debts. It appears, aggrieved by the said alienation by A1, P.W.1 quarrelled with A1 and left the matrimonial home and went back to her parents’ house. Within one and half months thereafter, she not only gave a police complaint but also filed M.C.No.9 of 1999 seeking maintenance and also a civil suit in O.S.No.92 of 1999 for creating a charge over the landed property for her maintenance. Any amount of grievance or dis-satisfaction on the part of P.W.1 over the alienation of land by A1 does not amount to causing ill-treatment or harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. 12. To constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty. The expression ‘cruelty’ is defined in explanation to Section 498-A IPC as follows: “ any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman”. 13. There is absolutely no allegation or any evidence to show that the accused committed any such acts which are of such a nature to drive P.W.1 even to commit suicide or cause any injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The prosecution seeks to rely upon clause (2) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC, which states that cruelty means harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coerce her or her parents to meet the unlawful demand for any property or is on account of failure by her or her parents to meet such demand. The prosecution has therefore to establish that there was in fact harassment of P.W.1 by the accused and the said harassment was with a view to coerce her or her parents to meet their demand for payment of money. When the evidence does not establish that P.W.1 was subjected to any such harassment within the meaning of clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC, the question of drawing presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. 14. The evidence on record, as rightly observed by the trial Court, does not establish that P.W.1 was subjected to any harassment or that such harassment was in connection with any demand for additional dowry or with a view to coerce P.W.1 or her parents to meet the said demand. In the absence of such evidence the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC do not get attracted. 15. P.W.2-mother of P.W.1 testified that on receiving the letter-Ex.P2 she went to the house of the accused, and the accused insisted that unless the amount of Rs.23,000/-, as demanded is not paid, P.W.1 would be sent back to her parental house. The letter-Ex.P2 was said to have been written by P.W.1 on 18-02-1999. Ex.D3-envelope in which Ex.P2 was posted shows that it was dispatched on 27-01-1999. This stand falsifies the statement of P.W.2 that on receiving a letter she went to the house of the accused on 22-01-1999. Thus the only incident of the alleged harassment by the accused wherein they are stated to have sent P.W.1 back to her parents unless their demand of Rs.20,000/- is met, is rendered highly doubtful as the oral evidence of P.W.2 does not fit in with the documentary evidence-Ex.P2 and D3. 16. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is also found to be at variance on a crucial aspect throwing any amount of doubt over veracity of version of the prosecution. The non-examination of the crucial witnesses, namely the father of P.W.2 and A.Satyanarayanaraju-brother-in-law of P.W.1’s father, as stated supra, proved fatal to the prosecution case. 17. P.W.8-Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of witnesses stated that during the investigation P.Ws.1 to 3 never stated that the accused beat P.W.1 or necked her out of the house and P.W.1 did not state in what manner she was harassed by the accused. P.W.5, one of the brothers of A2, turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. 18. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 and P.W.8 showed that they resiled away from the earlier statements given to the police during investigation and gave a different version during the evidence. 19. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The impugned judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 498-A IPC, which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, does not therefore call for any interference. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal. 20. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th March, 2010. Tsy