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 REVISION CASE No.5 OF 2000 Between: Damma Subbarao ..... Petitioner AND 1. State S.H.O. Pattabhipuram (L&O), Guntur, being Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Ms. Bunga Bharati ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment, dated 04.01.2000, in Crl.A.No.114 of 1994, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), recorded in judgment, dated 09.05.1994, in C.C.No.46 of 1991, by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, was confirmed, but the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of two years is reduced to six months, while maintaining fine. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: The marriage of P.W.1 with the accused was performed on 15.05.1983. At the time of her marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave cash of Rs.15,000/- and a scooter to the accused towards dowry. The accused was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of India, Arundelpet, Guntur, whereas P.W.1 was working as a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Department at Guntur. P.W.1 joined her husband and led marital life. Accused No.1 constructed a house at A.T.Agraharam, Guntur, by obtaining a loan. The allegation is that the accused was demanding P.W.1 to get Rs.5,000/- from her parents towards additional dowry for the purpose of construction of the house. P.W.1 brought the amount and gave the same to the accused. The accused addicted to bad vices and was having illicit contacts with one Kurra Radharani. As the salary of the accused was not sufficient to meet his unlawful expenditure, he was harassing P.W.1 to bring Rs.20,000/- . Unable to bear the said harassment, P.W.1 lodged a complaint. 3. When the charges under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 & P2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. However, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were set aside. Thereupon, a revision is filed before this Court. In pursuance of order, dated 17.08.1999, in Crl.R.C.No.236 of 1996 and Crl.R.P.No.234 of 1996, this Court set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal according to law. Thereupon, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment from two years to six months. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the trial Court, having given the benefit of doubt with regard to the demand of dowry under Section 4 of the Act, should have extended the same benefit to the accused as regards the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.; that the entire evidence rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1 which does not inspire confidence; that P.W.1 has categorically stated in divorce proceedings that at the instance of the petitioner only, she lodged a complaint and therefore, there is no correctness in the complaint and no implicit reliance can be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts below. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that none of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal. She further contended that the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and was also causing mental cruelty, as he was having extra marital relationship with one Kurra Radharani, and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect or illegal, or improper, normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below or reappreciate the evidence sitting as if in an Appeal. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the findings are not based upon the evidence and therefore, the findings are perverse. To know whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not much relevant because they are not the eye witnesses to the incident of any demand nor the accused demanding any amount from them. The evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the demand of Rs.30,000/-, which was received towards compensation consequent to the death of the father of P.W.1, was disbelieved by the trial Court. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W.1 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting her evidence. If her evidence is put in the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, then it requires some corroboration. P.W.1 stated that the accused was constructing a house in the site purchased at A.T. Agraharam in his name in the year 1986 and was demanding her to bring the money and she withdrew an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the fixed deposit made by her father in her name and paid the same to the accused, besides Rs.20,000/- from her recurring deposit account and that she used to pay the entire salary to the accused. On four or five occasions, when the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,000/-, P.W.1 gave that amount. It is also in the evidence that P.W.1 asked the accused to keep the house in her name, but P.W.1 was beaten by the accused saying that she had no concern with the house. So, except that evidence, there is no other evidence to infer that the accused was subjecting P.W.1 to cruelty to bring money for construction of the house. 12. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that the accused filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 1996, on the file of the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. By virtue of the judgment, dated 26.10.1998, passed in the above petition, the marriage of the accused with P.W.1 was dissolved on the ground of desertion. As seen from the said finding, P.W.1 deserted the accused since December, 1990. In her evidence in the said H.M.O.P., she stated that she filed a complaint against her husband at his instance only. Therefore, the earliest version of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that at the instance of the petitioner only, she lodged a complaint presumably to get rid of one Kurra Radharani, that means there is no truth or otherwise in the allegations made in the complaint. 13. With regard to allegation that the accused was having illicit contacts with one Kurra Radharani, P.W.1 stated that she saw three or four times the accused in the company of Kurra Radharani. It is not in dispute that Kurra Radharani is the daughter of woman, by name Jayamma, who supplies milk to the family of the accused even prior to the marriage of P.W.1. If really, the accused was having illicit contacts with Kurra Radharani, P.W.1 would have stated that Kurra Radharani must have attained puberty. But in her own evidence, prior to giving of Ex.P1-complaint, she stated that she did not know whether Kurra Radharani attained puberty or not. Therefore, a vague allegation is made that the accused was having illicit contacts with one Kurra Radharani, but there is no iota of evidence to prove the said fact. 14. In P.W.1 evidence also, she stated that she gave Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,000/- four or five times as per the demands made by the accused and that she has withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the fixed deposit and paid that amount, besides paying Rs.20,000/- from her recurring deposit account. That aspect of the case has not been stated by P.W.1 to the police when she was examined. 15. It is admitted by P.W.1 that she was having an account in Andhra Bank, Karitipadu and Brodipet, Guntur. She also admitted that the accused was incurring her travelling expenses when she worked at Guntur, and the accused used to return to home by evening immediately after the office hours. P.W.1 has not filed any documentary evidence to show that she had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- and paid the same to the accused. She does not know whether the accused obtained a loan of Rs.80,000/- from Co-operative Society Bank for the purpose of construction of the house. Therefore, her evidence would go to show that the accused demanded certain amounts for the purpose of construction of the house. Admittedly, the disputes arose between P.W.1 and the accused because the accused refused to transfer the house property in the name of P.W.1. In view of her inconsistent version from one stage to another stage, it cannot be said that she was wholly reliable evidence. Therefore, her evidence requires corroboration. There is no other evidence to show that the accused was subjecting P.W.1 to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry. These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below in right perspective. Hence, the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, are liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 04.01.2000, in Crl.A.No.114 of 1994, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. The accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 498A I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be returned to him. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 9th November, 2009. KL