THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.709 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 8 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment dated 06.09.2007 in C.C.No.81 of 2000 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, CID, City Zone, Hyderabad filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.82 of 1997 alleging one G. Aruna to be the wife of the first accused. Their marriage was performed at Rangareddygudem on 18.05.1978 as per Hindu rites and customs and she was blessed with a daughter in 1981. The first accused again married one Sita Mahalaxmi, concealing his first marriage with Aruna. The first accused deserted Sita Mahalaxmi after few days and when Maddireddy Marreddy, father of Aruna intervened, the first accused demanded cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs and land, on which a Guava garden was given to the first accused and Aruna left her job and started staying with the first accused at Rangareddygudem. When the first accused applied for divorce with Aruna, it was dismissed and when the first accused was attempting to marry again, Aruna questioned him, on which she was beaten. In 1996 the first accused forced Aruna to join in some job at Hyderabad and Aruna came to know that the first accused was proposing to marry the second accused with the help of 8th accused. Karunakar Reddy was claimed to have informed the accused 2 to 4 and 7 about the marriage between Aruna and the first accused subsisting, in spited of which, the accused 3 to 8 celebrated the marriage of the first and second accused at Yadagirigutta through S. Ramachari, the priest, as per Hindu rites and customs. The accused 1 and 2 started living at Rangareddygudem. Aruna gave a report to the police resulting in registration of the crime and investigation. The accused obtained bail and were hence charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 494 read with Section 109 of IPC. 3 On the Court taking cognizance of the offences, copies of all the documents were furnished to the accused on their appearance and the accused denied the offences when they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and to a charge framed under Section 498-A of IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 during trial and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1, and D.2 were marked in defence. 4 In the impugned judgment, the trial court dealt with the factual background and the evidence in detail and observed that Ex.P.2 the earliest version did not refer to the payment of dowry and the independent witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 did not speak about payment of dowry and no document supported the claim of payment of dowry, and that the evidence of P.W.1 and her father was held insufficient to prove the alleged demand and payment of dowry. Concerning the alleged marriage between the first and second accused, the trial court noted that allegedly there was a marriage between the first accused and one Mekapothula Lakshmidevi on 24.11.1988 at a temple, while the investigation was only about the second marriage between the first and second accused and not concerning the marriage of the first accused with P.W.4. The trial court opined that any evidence concerning the marriage of the first accused with P.W.4 is not useful and further observed that the alleged second marriage between the first and second accused is not spoken to by any witness. The trial court noted that P.W.8 had no personal knowledge of the alleged second marriage while P.W.9 could not identify the accused. The essential rituals to be performed in a Hindu marriage were not stated by the witnesses to have been performed. The trial court further observed that P.W.1 admitted living with the first accused at Rangareddygudem soon after the marriage but returned to her parents’ house to complete her studies. The trial court also noted that P.W.1 never mentioned about any harassment from the accused as stated in the complaint. The demand for additional dowry was admittedly not mentioned in the counter of P.W.1 in O.P.No.77 of 1989. P.W2 was said to have not referred to any harassment on demand for additional dowry and so was P.W.3. The depositions of P.Ws.1 and 7 were also found not corroborating each other about the demands for any Guava garden or a portion of the house etc. During investigation, the investigating officer also did not find any demand for such additional dowry or properties and when none of the witnesses spoke about the second accused and the alleged marriages were not proved, the accused were entitled to acquittal due to absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they were acquitted. 5 The State through the learned Public Prosecutor challenges the said acquittal in this appeal contending that the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC were made out by the prosecution and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 which was cogent and trustworthy should have been acted upon in giving conviction. 6 Heard Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the accused. 7 The point for consideration is whether the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt in respect of any of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 R/w 109 of IPC? 8 It should be noted at the outset that though the charge sheet filed by the police against the accused was in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 494 R/w 109 of IPC also apart from 498-A, the trial court had not framed any charge under the said sections against the accused and the specific charge framed against the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried was only under Section 498-A of IPC. The prosecution did not take any steps throughout the trial to have the accused tried for the offences punishable under sections 494 and 109 of IPC. 9 P.W.1 the de facto complainant / victim was speaking about the first accused not taking care of herself and her daughter and the first accused selling away some land given by his father etc. She also spoke about the activities of the first accused, leaving her in 1984 and giving a divorce notice later in 1989. She did not speak about any demands for, or harassment or cruelty in respect of any additional dowry or valuable security. She was speaking about their coming to know about the marriage between the first accused and P.W.4. But the charge framed herein was not in respect of the said marriage, but the alleged marriage between the accused 1 and 2 with the involvement of accused 3 to 8. Even the alleged second marriage of the first accused with P.W.4 did not result any breakdown of the marriage between P.W.1 and the first accused, who lived together again from 1989 to 1995, after P.W.1’s father gave a Guava garden as demanded by the first accused. The attempt of the first accused to marry the second accused by giving divorce was spoken to by P.W.1. But the allegations about the disputes concerning the properties did not mention about any cruelty or harassment. Insofar as the first and second accused are concerned, what all P.W.1 came to know in February 1997 was through others and she did not claim to be a witness to the alleged second marriage. While admitting that a second divorce petition had been filed by the first accused, P.W.1 admitted to be not referring to their marriage being performed also according to Christian rites in her report. Her lengthy evidence, at any rate, did not even allege the necessary ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC against the first accused. 10 P.W.2 was speaking about the marriage between P.W.1 and the first accused and he stated nothing with regard to the quarrels between the parties in connection with any dowry. What he heard from others on the other aspects is only hearsay evidence and P.W.3 was also a similar witness. While P.Ws.2 and 3 had not claimed personal knowledge about the subsequent marriages of the first accused, P.W.4 attempted to claim that the first accused proposed to her father and married her at Chenna Kesava Swamy temple at Macherla and lived with her for two months. She claimed Ex.P.11 to be her marriage certificate and to be later coming to know through her father about the first accused being already married. Her evidence discloses that when she was a child, she was married earlier to one Prasad as per Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was admittedly not dissolved through Court. Her claim of obtaining divorce was not stated to be as per any custom nor is it evidenced by any document. 11 The evidence of P.W.4 was also specific that not even a notice was given to the first accused at any time about the alleged marriage with her and her claim is for the first time before the Court in the matter which was not concerning her marriage with the first accused, which cannot inspire confidence in such circumstances. Even if their allegations are proved, the accused cannot be fastened with any liability under section 494 of IPC as he was not prosecuted for such offence in this case. 12 P.W.5 was speaking about the advice of the police to the father of a girl not to marry her to the first accused without any identifiable details. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that the first accused informed about the pending divorce proceedings and promised to take P.W.4 with him after obtaining divorce. P.W.6 stated that P.W.4 was married to an agriculturist of neighbouring village earlier from whom she did not obtain legal divorce and in fact P.W4’s father was claimed to have died due to the worries about his daughter. The claims about the alleged marriage between P.W.4 and the first accused are not hence such as to inspire confidence. 13 P.W.7, the father of P.W.1 was speaking about giving gold, cash and other household articles at the time of marriage on the demand of the first accused and when he was stating that the first accused was not looking after P.W.1 properly, he was not speaking about any cruelty or harassment for non payment of any additional dowry or furnishing any valuable security. The claim of P.W.7 further that the first accused did not even look after the child of P.W.1 is similar and the failure of P.W.7 to comply with the demand for payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs was not alleged further to be the reason for the first accused claiming divorce. The alleged marriage between the first accused and P.W.4, which was said to be the subject of a dispute raised by P.W.7 was not spoken to by any other witness and the various other allegations of P.W.7 about the disputes concerning properties etc., were never said to have resulted in any harassment by the first accused towards P.W.1. 14 P.W.8 the Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi Chenna Kesava Swamy temple, Macherla was speaking about Ex.P.12 marriage register book, Ex.P.13 receipt and also about the marriage between the first accused and P.W.4. Similar was the evidence of the priest as P.W.9. P.W.10 could not give the names of bride and bridegroom about whose marriage on 21.02.1997 he was speaking and though he did not see the accused again since the alleged marriage, he attempted even to identify the first accused before the Court. 15 P.W.11 the investigating officer did not state as to why no evidence at all has been placed before the Court concerning the alleged marriage between the first and second accused for which the accused were attempted to be prosecuted and as to why the investigation was directed solely against the marriage between the first accused and P.W.4 for which the accused were not prosecuted. 16 The evidence of the Village Administrative Officer as D.W.1 about his knowledge concerning the marriage between P.W.1 and the first accused is not much relevant. 17 It is seen from the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court by the prosecution that the long narration of the events in the marital life of P.W.1 and the first accused by P.W.1 and her father or others never specifically alleged any of the accused including the first accused to be guilty of any cruelty or harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. P.W.1 never claimed that the conduct of any of the accused is such as would have driven her to commit suicide or subjected to grave injury or danger to life or limb of her. There was never an allegation about any unlawful demand for property or any valuable security, failure to provide which, resulted in cruelty or harassment with a view to coerce P.W.1 or any person related to her. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC could not have been considered on such evidence. While there was no evidence at all about the alleged second marriage or third marriage between the first and second accused for which the charge sheet was filed, as no charge was framed, the alleged marriage between P.W.4 and the first accused was not the subject of the prosecution and in such circumstances, acquittal of the accused by the trial court could not have been faulted without any valid reason. 18 The Criminal appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed. ------------------------ G. Bhavani Prasad, J. 20.12.2011 Kvsn