IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.314 OF 2003 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Yerraguntla Venugopal Reddy & 2 others ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 10.09.2001, in C.C.No.62 of 1999, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur, whereunder and whereby the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), and accordingly acquitted. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1 is no other than the wife of Accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-laws of P.W.1. The marriage of P.W.1 and Accused No.1 was performed in the year 1989 in Atmakur according to Hindu rites and customs and it was inter-caste marriage arranged by the elders of both the parties. At the time of marriage, no dowry was given by the parents of P.W.1 since she was working in the office of Mandal Development Officer. By that time, Accused No.1 was an unemployee. For about one year, both P.W.1 and Accused No.1 lived happily. P.W.1 was blessed with two male children. Later, P.W.1 became a Mandal Revenue Officer. With her financial aid, Accused No.1 completed his law degree and started his legal practice in the house of P.W.1 at Kurnool. Later, P.W.1 was transferred to Miduthuru and she kept her two children with her mother in Kurnool to give good education. Accused No.1 used to go to Miduthuru along with his parents and some times, P.W.1 used to come to Kurnool. In this way, both P.W.1 and Accused No.1 led their marital life for some years. Due to failure in legal profession, Accused No.1 addicted to bad habits and started harassing P.W.1 for want of dowry and Accused Nos.2 and 3 also instigated Accused No.1 in a cruel manner towards P.W.1. Unable to bear the said cruelty, P.W.1 narrated the incident to her parents, but her parents advised her to adjust herself to safeguard her children's future. Three months prior to giving of complaint, Accused No.1 came to Miduthuru and demanded Rs.10,000/- from P.W.1. On the advice of the house owner of P.W.1, she gave Rs.10,000/- to Accused No.1. From then, P.W.1 completely neglected Accused No.1. Again on 04.05.1999 at about 7.30 a.m., when P.W.1 was preparing herself to attend Janmabhoomi programme, Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to Miduthuru and demanded Rs.20,000/- from P.W.1, for which she showed her inability. Then, all the accused threatened to see her end and forcibly took away the two children, who came there to spend holidays with their mother. When the neighbourers intervened, the accused warned them not to interfere or enter into family affairs. Then, P.W.1 went to the Police Station of Miduthur and lodged Ex.P1-complaint. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act and investigated into. They examined the witnesses and recorded the statements. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to 13. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that she was subjected to cruelty by all the accused; that because of harassment made by the accused, P.W.1 suffered mental torture; that there is no other reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 whose evidence would go to show that the accused were in a habit of harassing P.W.1, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Accused contended that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the impugned judgment, in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 11. The offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act requires that there was a demand for dowry at the time of marriage before or after the marriage. 12. For the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., “cruelty” means: “(a) 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 (b) 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.” 13. It is not in dispute that the marriage of P.W.1 with Accused No.1 was performed in the year 1989 in Atmakur according to Hindu rites. The relationship is not in dispute. P.W.1 and Accused No.1 lived happily together for some time. It is the case of the prosecution that with the financial assistance of P.W.1, Accused No.1 completed his law degree and started his legal practice. P.W.1 did not state that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded any dowry so as to punish them under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the fact that the marriage of P.W.1 with Accused No.1 is an inter-caste marriage arranged and approved by the elders, the question of demand of dowry does not arise. Perhaps that is the reason why the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. 14. Coming to the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., the allegation is that about three months prior to filing of complaint, Accused No.1 came to the house of P.W.1 in Miduthuru and demanded Rs.10,000/- for personal expenses. On the advice of her house owner and neighbourer, P.W.1 gave Rs.10,000/- to Accused No.1. Again on 04.05.1999, when P.W.1 was preparing herself to attend Janmabhoomi programme, Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to her house in Miduthuru at about 7.30 a.m. and demanded Rs.20,000/- for their necessities, for which she showed her inability. Then, all the accused threatened to see her end. 15. P.W.2, who is the house owner of the house in which P.W.1 was residing and the person who witnessed the said incident. The evidence of P.W.2 also would go to show that about two years back, he heard the conversation from the house of PW.1 at about 7.30 a.m. and then he went there and observed that Accused No.1 was demanding Rs.10,000/- from P.W.1, and that P.W.1 showed her inability to give that amount, then he advised her to give that amount to Accused No.1. 16. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that on 04.05.1999 at about 7.00 a.m. or 8.00 a.m, when he went to the house of P.W.9, who is his brother-in-law, on his personal work, and while he was talking with P.W.9, he heard some cries from the house of P.W.1. When P.W.3 went along with P.W.9 to the house of P.W.1, he observed that Accused Nos.1 to 3 were demanding P.W.1 to pay Rs.20,000/-. Their evidence would go to show that Accused No.1 was demanding Rs.20,000/- towards their necessities, for which she expressed her inability. Then, all the accused threatened to see her end and took away the two children by saying that they would return the children only when she fulfilled their demand. 17. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the parents of P.W.1. They came to know about the incident which took place at the house of P.W.1. They are not the eye witnesses to the incident of demand of dowry. But they have stated that Accused took away the children saying that they would return the children only after P.W.1 paid the demanded money. 18. P.W.6, who is no other than the sister of P.W.1, deposed that Accused No.1 used to harass her sister for want of additional dowry. 19. P.W.7, who is working as Talari for Thimmapuram village, deposed that on 04.05.1999, Accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the house of P.W.1 and asked for the money towards dowry. 20. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she categorically admitted that Accused No.1 asked Rs.10,000/- for purchase of books and whereas, the demand of Rs.20,000/-, made on 04.05.1999, was for the necessities. Therefore, mere demand of money for purchase of books and necessities cannot be said to be an unlawful demand. The unlawful demand must be with reference to the marriage between parties. P.W.4, who is the father of P.W.1, has categorically stated that both P.W.1 and Accused No.1 adjusted themselves. He never asked Accused No.1 whether he was demanding additional dowry. 21. The evidence of P.W.5, who is the mother of P.W.1, would go to show that when she came to know about Accused No.1 demanding Rs.20,000/-, she scolded them. P.W.5 did not state that the demands made by the accused are unlawful. Even P.W.1 did not state in her evidence that on account of demand of dowry, she was mentally disturbed. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. After proper appreciation of evidence on record only, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 10.09.2001, in C.C.No.62 of 1999, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 9th November, 2009 KL