THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1261 of 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Station House Officer, Devarakonda p.s., filed by the present appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2001 in C.C. NO.124 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda, whereunder and whereby both the respondents herein, who are A.1 and A.2, were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted of the said charge. 2. P.W.1 is none other than wife of A.1, whose marriage was performed with A.1 three years prior to 1998. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.11,000/-, half tula of gold and 40 tulas of silver were presented to A.1. Thereafter, the accused started demanding P.W.1 to bring cash of Rs.7,000/- to purchase bulls. On that, P.W.3, who is father of P.W.1, said to have purchased bulls in Mallepally shandy and handed over the same to the accused. Some time thereafter, the accused again started harassing and subjecting P.W.1 to cruelty to bring money to purchase a tractor. Basing on the report of P.W.1, police registered the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. For a charge under Section 498A I.P.C., the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1-complaint. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 was marked, on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court has not placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and held that there was no cruelty meted out to P.W.1 by both the accused, and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is correct, legal and proper ? 7. The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very clear that the accused were demanding P.W.1 to bring the amounts sufficient to purchase a tractor, which is an unlawful demand, and hence, the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. is made out; that, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Hence, she prayed to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict the respondents/A.1 and A.2. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/A.1 and A.2 contended that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are not affluent to purchase a tractor, and that the income being earned by P.W.3 was hardly sufficient to meet the necessities of his family consisting of 7 members; that, knowing fully well about the financial status of P.W.3, it is improbable to believe that the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring money sufficient to purchase a tractor; that, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and accordingly acquitted them and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the criminal appeal. 9. A.1 is the husband and A.2 is the mother-in-law, of P.W.1. Similarly, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are mother and father respectively, of P.W.1. There is no dispute about the marriage between P.W.1 and A.1. Similarly, it is not seriously disputed about P.W.3 giving cash of Rs.11,000/- , half tula of gold and 40 tulas of silver to the accused at the time of marriage. There is evidence on record which would go to show that for about one year after the marriage, both P.W.1 and the accused lived happily. It is not in dispute that A.1 was having Ac.15.00 of dry land. It is alleged that, after one year after the marriage, the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring certain amounts to purchase bulls. 10. There cannot be any dispute that, under Section 498A I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that P.W.1, who is no other than wife of A.1, was subjected to cruelty by A.1 and A.2. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of 498A I.P.C. is any willful 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Three instances have been testified by P.W.1 so as to bring the case under the purview of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. viz. firstly, demand for purchase of bulls; secondly demand for purchase of tractor and thirdly mixing bangle pieces in food to be eaten by P.W.1. 11. Insofar as the demand for purchase of bulls is concerned, the finding of the trial court is that evidence of P.W.1 does not indicate about coercing or harassment while demanding money for purchasing bulls. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the accused asked P.W.1 to get money for purchasing bulls. Because A.1 was having Ac.15.00 of land, asking P.W.1 to bring money for purchase of bulls, cannot be said to be unlawful demand. There must be coercion or harassment to bring money for purchase of bulls. There was no coercion or harassment by the accused to P.W.1. Therefore, that instance cannot be said to be cruelty within the meaning of Explanation to 498A I.P.C. 12. Coming to the second instance, the allegation is that A.1 demanded P.W.1 to bring money for purchase of tractor. The family condition of P.W.3 is very well known to the accused even at the time of marriage. It is in the evidence that P.W.3 lives by cooli work and was getting Rs.1,000/- per month. Admittedly, family of P.W.3 was having 7 members and all of them were completely dependent on the earnings of P.W.3. Therefore, in those circumstances, earnings of Rs.1,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month by P.W.3 is hardly sufficient to maintain his family. Such is the case, it is highly improbable to believe that the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring money from her father so as to purchase a tractor worth in lakhs. If it is a case where P.W.3 was having sufficient means to purchase a tractor, then it can be said that the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring money from her father to purchase a tractor. So, this second instance also appears to be improbable and unbelievable. 13. Coming to the third instance, P.W.1 did not state that she was made to eat food mixed with pieces of bangles. Except mere assertion given by P.W.1, there is absolutely no other evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are not direct witnesses to speak about the accused demanding them to bring money to purchase a tractor. Therefore, their evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of proving the case for the charges levelled against the accused. 14. P.W.4 is said to have mediated dispute between P.W.1 and the accused. His evidence does not indicate that P.W.1 was subjected to ill-treatment or harassment by her husband. P.W.5 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on the aforementioned evidence, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 15. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12.07.2001 in C.C. NO.124 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 6.8.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1261 of 2002 Date: 6.8.2009 Between: Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant and Bommu Venkataiah & another …Respondents This Court made the following: