HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C. No. 403 of 2004 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed challenging the Judgment, dated 04-03-2004 in Crl.A.No.124 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Khammam, whereby and whereunder the conviction and the sentence passed against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.233 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was confirmed and the conviction and the sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The Accused married Sk. Khasimbi, who was examined as PW-1, in 1997 and at the time of their marriage, the parents of PW-1 gave Rs.40,000/- to the Accused towards dowry along with one gold ring, T.V., gas connection and other household articles. PW-2 is the mother and PW-3 is the father of PW-1. PWs.4 and 5 are the neighbours of PW.3. The specific case of the prosecution is that after the marriage, the Accused and PW-1 lead marital life happily at Khammam and thereafter they shifted their family to Hyderabad. The Accused was running an auto to eak out his livelihood. While they were living at Hyderabad, PW-1 became pregnant. It is alleged that the Accused addicted to alcohol drinks and used to beat PW-1 and reach the house in late night. It is also alleged that he beat PW-1 and then left her at her parents’ house. After PW-1 delivered a female baby at her parents house and about five months thereafter, the Accused visited his in-laws’s house and demanded additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- from the parents of PW-1. it is also alleged that he threatened that if PW-1 failed to bring additional dowry, he would not take her back to Hyderabad. Two months thereafter the Accused again made such demand and thus he has harassed the complainant. Having vexed with the attitude of the Accused, PW-1 reported the matter to the police on 02-02-2001 and the police registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2001 of PS Khammam Town for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the said offences. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. The accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him, but he did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. The learned Magistrate, after going through the entire evidence, convicted the Accused for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under each count. Being aggrieved by the same, the Accused preferred Crl.A.No.124 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Khammam and the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the Appeal in part, set aside the conviction and the sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and confirmed the conviction and the sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Case has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused submitted that there should be series of acts in order to prove the harassment within the meaning of Explanation-b of Section 498-A of IPC. He has further submitted that mere demand of dowry or additional dowry on one occasion to clear the family debts or to start a business may not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. It is further contended that unless there 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, Section 498-A of IPC is not attracted. It is also his submission that the harassment should be with a view to coerce to woman or any person related to her to make any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. 6. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, relied on PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. V. JAYA PRAKASH [1], wherein it was held that unless a clear evidence to show that the wife was mentally disturbed by the demand of dowry, the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are not attracted. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case there is evidence to show that the Accused harassed PW- 1 demanding additional dowry and that he beat her when she was pregnant and driven her out of his house and after she delivered a female baby, he again went to the house of her parents and demanded Rs.20,000/- towards additional dowry and had put a condition that unless the said amount is paid to him, he would not allow PW-1 to join him and two months thereafter he again went there and retreated his demand. Thus the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the demand is not on one occasion and it is continuous and therefore, the conduct of the Accused in continuously harassing the complainant for unlawful demand of additional dowry attracts the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and therefore, both the Courts have rightly found the Accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and there are no grounds to set aside the same. 8. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation:-- For the purposes of this section, “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.” From the reading of the above Section, it is very clear that where a person, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, then the ingredients of this Section will be attracted. The “cruelty” was defined as 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 of the woman. Under Explanation (b), “cruelty” defined as the 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. 9. While dealing with Explanation-B of Section 498-A of IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GIRDHAR SHANAR TAWADE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2], wherein the Supreme Court held that the legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b). As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, Explanation (a) of Section 498-A of IPC is not applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, we have to see whether Explanation (b) has been attracted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. V. JAYA PRAKASH [3], this Court, while dealing with a case, where the victim did not depose the fact of being mentally disturbed by the demand of dowry, held that no offence under Section 498-A of IPC is made out. 11. The specific allegations made against the Accused are that at the time of marriage the parents of PW-1 gave Rs.40,000/- to the Accused towards dowry in addition to one gold ring, one T.V., one gas connection and other household articles. After shifting to Hyderabad, the Accused addicted to alcoholic drinks and used to beat PW-1 and visit the house late in the night. When PW-1 was carrying fourth month, the Accused beat her and dropped her at her parents’ house. Five months after the delivery, the Accused came to her parents house and demanded additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. After two months he again came to the parents house of PW-1 and picked up a quarrel with her and abused her parents and demanded additional dowry. 12. According to PW-1, the Accused and herself lived happily for about two years and then shifted the residence to Hyderabad. They were residing in the house of one Satyanarayana as tenants. The Accused had taken a loan from Andhra Bank to purchase an auto. The first incident which PW-1 has referred to is that the Accused beat, abused and also kicked her when she was carrying fourth month. She has also deposed that the Accused had dropped her at her parents’ house. 13. As observed by the lower Court the Accused being an auto driver, he cannot be found fault for coming late to his house during night time because his profession may compel him to work even during late night hours. There is no allegation by PW-1 that the acts of the Accused in abusing or beating her were with any particular motive. It is also not her case that the Accused had demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. According to PW-1, after she gave birth to a child, the Accused came to her parents house and demanded Rs.20,000/-. It is also the case of PW-1 that the Accused stated that he will not take back her unless he was paid Rs.20,000/-. Her further case is that by the time she, along with her parents, again came to Hyderabad, the Accused had vacated his house. It is also her case that the Accused again came to her parents house and demanded them to pay Rs.20,000/-. In Ex.P-1, PW-1 reported that her husband informed her that he was in debts and to discharge the debts he was in need of money. During the cross- examination, PW-1 admitted that on 40th day, a barasala function was arranged in her parents house and that the Accused had attended the said function and performed all the formalities. She has also admitted that herself and the Accused both intended to purchase auto with earnest money. She has also admitted that there are no timings to work as an auto driver. 14. PW-2, the mother of PW-1, deposed that PW-1 used to inform her about the harassment caused by the Accused. PW-1 gave birth to a female child and when the baby was five months old, the Accused came to their house and demanded Rs.20,000/- towards dowry and further threatened that unless the said amount is paid, he would not take back PW-1 to Hyderabad. She also stated that the Accused also visited their house on the 9th day after the delivery of the female child. According to PW-2 the Accused did not come to their house after 40th day function. 15. PW-3, the father of PW-1, deposed that the Accused and PW-1 lived happily for about two years after the marriage. Thereafter the Accused addicted to drinking and started harassing PW-1. As far as the incidents occurred in Hyderabad are concerned, according to him PW-1 informed about the incident. He further deposed that the Accused visited their house after five months after the birth of the child and demanded money from them. According to this witness the Accused also attended the 40th day function, but he did not bring any presentations to the child on that occasion. But, according to PW-1 the accused performed all the formalities on the 40th day ceremony. 16. According to PWs.1 and 2, at the time of marriage itself Rs.40,000/- was presented to the Accused. But according to PW-3, an amount of R.20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and two years later they gave Rs.20,000/- to the Accused to purchase auto. 17. PW-4 is the neighbour of PW-1 and a distant relative of PWs.1 and 2. According to her, the Accused came to the house of PW.3 on the occasion of 40th day ceremony and again after four months after the birth of the child and demanded Rs.20,000/- to take back PW-1. According to PW-2 the accused did not visit their house after 40th day ceremony. Thus the version of prosecution witnesses is not consistent and contradictory and therefore not trustworthy. 18. PW-5 is the neighbour of PW-1. According to him, the Accused came to the house of PWs.2 and 3 five months after the birth of the child and wanted to take PW-1 and the child. According to him the Accused demanded some amount from PW-1 and that they requested the Accused to stay for two days to settle the dispute, but the Accused on the same day evening quarreled with PWs.1 to 3 and went to Hyderabad. 19. PW-6 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case. 20. PW-7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated into the case and filed the charge sheet. 21. The evidence of PW-7 shows that he has not enquired with the neighbours of PW-1 either at Khammam or Hyderabad. He has also admitted that PW-1 did not give particulars as to the date or the name of the persons before whom the accused demanded dowry. 22. The main allegation is demand of additional dowry. Admittedly the auto was purchased after obtaining loan from the bank. With regard to the amount paid at the time of marriage also, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is contradictory. As discussed above, according to PWs.1 and 2, Rs.40,000/- was paid at the time of marriage, but according to PW-3 an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and the remaining Rs.20,000/- was paid at the time of purchasing the auto. Therefore with regard to the payment of dowry itself there are inconsistent versions. 23. A close reading of the evidence of PW-1 clearly discloses that she was prepared to join the accused if he shifts his residence to Khammam. Of course she has also alleged that since the Accused married another woman, she would not go to Hyderabad. The allegation that the accused married another woman is not spoken by any other witness. Even PW-1 also did not make such allegation in her complaint to the police. A careful reading of entire evidence reveals that the Accused purchased an auto after obtaining loan and it appears that as he was unable to discharge the debt amount, he requested the parents of PW-1 to pay him an amount of Rs.20,000/- to enable him to discharge the debts. Seeking help from the parents of the wife to discharge the debts, in my considered view, does not amount to harassing the woman for dowry. The differences and quarrels may arose between husband and wife for many reasons particularly with regard to the place of residence, behaviour, habits, treatment and these quarrels cannot be termed as harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Otherwise the very purpose of Section 498-A IPC would be defeated. Therefore, the courts have to carefully examine the evidence to determine the real dispute between the parties. 24. In SMT. SARLA PRABHAKAR WAGHMARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [4], it was held that harassment which create a situation of forcing the wife to commit suicide alone contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC and not every harassment. 25. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the alleged series of the acts committed by the Accused are not with any willful conduct to harass PW-1 for dowry and mere demanding a megre amount on one or two occasions either to discharge the debts or for some purpose does not amount to harassment and the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC cannot be said to be attracted. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. From the above discussion it is clear that the Courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective and came to the wrong conclusions. Where the appreciation of evidence leads to manifest injustice, the High Court can exercise the revisional powers and set aside the impugned orders. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner/Accused by the Courts below. _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 11-09-2009 YCR [1] 1996 (2) ALD (Crl.) 298 [2] 2002 (2) Crimes 360 (SC) [3] 1996 (2) ALD (Crl.) 298 [4] 1990 CriLJ 407