* THE HON’BLE SRI GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 of 2007 % 28.10.2010 Between: Naraman Mojes ..... PETITIONER AND The State of AP reptd., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy ^ Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: NIL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 OF 2007 ORDER: The sole accused who was tried in C.C.No.206 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Cases under Prohibition and Excise Acts, Mahabubnagar, is the petitioner herein. As both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court found him guilty of the said offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months. He filed this Revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the wife of the petitioner who was examined as P.W-1 gave a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station about the harassment meted out by her at the hands of the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered against the petitioner herein and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same reads as under: - “The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station file charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 02.09.2003 at 19 hours the de facto complainant Smt Shashikala came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that on 05.05.1995 her marriage was held with A-1 at the time of marriage her parents gave a net cash of Rs.25,000/-, ½ tola god ring, clothes and house hold articles to her husband as dowry. At the time of marriage, her husband was unemployee after some days of her marriage, her husband got Constable Job in Xth Bn.APSP, Beechupally. She led married life in the house of in-laws for a period of four years. After joining job her husband, her mother-in-law Karunamma and sister-in-law Navaneethamma started harassment mentally and physically demanding to bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents and they also instigated her husband to harass her mentally and physically for money. At last her parents left her in her parents house. In the cradle ceremony of their son, he accused picked up quarrel with here parents and demanded to provide an amount of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry. She expressed desire of her parents that they are unable to provide the amount, then the accused left her at the house of her parents on 16.08.2003, her husband visited the in-laws house and informed that he was going to perform plural marriage with Magaret, if they fail to provide amount and went away. Therefore, requested to take necessary legal action on which the ASI registered the case recorded the statement of witnesses and on 26.09.2003, the SI arrested A-1 to A-3 and produced before the Court for remand, after completion of investigation along with charge sheet.” The trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner herein and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., he denied the said offence. During the course of trial, the de facto complainant was examined as P.W-1, her parents were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, the alleged eye- witnesses to the harassment were examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 and the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W-6. The report given by P.W-1 and the First Information Report were marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2, respectively. The petitioner herein- accused was examined as D.W-2 and he got examined one Narman Ayanna as D.W-1 and got exhibited Exs.D-1 to D-5. Having analysed the said evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner herein and accordingly, sentenced him as stated supra. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2006 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar vide his judgment dated 14.05.2007, confirmed the same. As stated supra, the same is questioned in the present Revision. The main contention of Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused, is that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner as if he has committed the said offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. According to him, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was not to the liking of the de facto complainant, but, however as the petitioner was a Police constable, her parents, who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, forcibly got the marriage performed and that the petitioner and the de facto complainant lived together only for a period of one year after the marriage. Learned senior counsel mainly laid emphasis on the letter addressed by P.W-1 on 09.06.1997, which was marked as Ex.D-2. According to him, the said letter clearly establishes that there was no harassment meted by the de facto complainant at the hands of the accused to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC and the entire prosecution case is a falsity. Learned senior counsel further submitted that on an earlier occasion also, P.W-1-de facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner and on the advise of the elders, the matter was compromised and she withdrew the said complaint, and the said compromise deed, dated 25.09.2003, is marked as Ex.D-5. According to him, the Courts below without considering the evidence of the defence witnesses and the documents marked on behalf of the defence, simply came to a conclusion that the petitioner-accused harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry and thus, the petitioner is guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, which is not correct. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said submissions and stated that the Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that there is demand for additional dowry by the petitioner-accused and as the said demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant both physically and mentally, and as such, the Courts below are justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. According to him, P.Ws.1 to 5 have clearly stated that there is dowry harassment by the petitioner and as such, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. In a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, it is not for this Court to weigh the evidence again in holding as to whether the petitioner is guilty of the said offence or not. What is to be seen in a Revision of this nature is as to whether there is any illegality that has been committed by the Courts below either in convicting or acquitting the accused. The main contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as stated supra, is that the marriage was not to the liking of the de facto complainant and the same is established from the contents of Ex.D-2-a letter, dated 09.06.1997, written by P.W-1. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into Ex.D-2. From a perusal of Ex.D-2, it is clear that the de facto complainant-Shashikala had written the said letter stating that she was not liking the said marriage and she does not want to lead marital life with the petitioner. It is also stated in the said letter that she does not want to be in the house of the petitioner for the reason that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from some incurable disease. If Ex.D-2 is accepted, it can definitely be held that the marriage was not to the liking of P.W-1 and the said case against the petitioner has been foisted falsely by P.W-1. But, the said letter was not accepted by the Courts below for the reason that the execution of the said letter was denied by P.W-1. From a perusal of the evidence of P.W-1, it is clear that she denied having written such a letter. In that view of the matter, this Court looked into Ex.P-1- i.e., the report given by P.W-1 to the Police and the letter which was marked as Ex.D-2, dated 09.06.1997, which was signed by P.W-1 in Telugu. The deposition of P.W-1 is signed in English, whereas the report which was marked as Ex.P-1, dated 02.09.2003, is signed by her in both English and Telugu. In the light of the said report, this Court tried to compare the said signature of P.W-1 on Ex.D-2 with that of the admitted signatures on the deposition of P.W-1. Apparently, the signature of Shashikala i.e., P.W-1, both in English and Telugu, on Ex.P-1-report, tally with her signature in Telugu on Ex.D-2 and the signature in English on her deposition as P.W-1. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with comparison of signature, writing or seal with other admitted or proved, states that in order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have be written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. Ex.P-1-report is a document produced by the prosecution and with regard to the signature of P.W-1 on Ex.P-1, there is no dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the signature on Ex.D-2 for the reason that the executant i.e., P.W-1 denied the same. In those circumstances, this Court compared the signature of P.W-1 on Ex.D-2 with that of the other admitted signatures of P.W-1 on Ex.P-1 and on her deposition as P.W-1, as per the said provision of law i.e., Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that the complainant in Ex.P-1 and the executant of Ex.D-2-letter is one and the same. Similarly, the signature of P.W-1 in English on Ex.P-1 is tallied with the signature of P.W-1 in English on her deposition as P.W-1. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the prosecution has come forward with a false case and the defence theory appears to be correct. In those circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Courts below erred in holding the petitioner guilty of the said offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned judgment of the trial Court, as was confirmed by the appellate Court, is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the said charge under Section 498-A IPC. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 28th October 2010 dr