THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1707 of 2005 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: P. Venkata Subba Rao … Petitioner/ De facto complainant AND 1. Pernapati Venkata Sathyanarayana 2. Pernapati Ravi Chandra Kumar 3. Pernapati Venkata Subbamma … Respondents/ Accused 4. The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1707 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is against the acquittal of A.1 to A.3 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddutur in S.C.No.227 of 2003. The accused were charge sheeted and charged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. Exs.P.1 to 12 were marked. Considering the overall evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge considered that no case was made out. 2. When the case came up for hearing, no one represented the accused. Sri O. Uday Kumar represented the revision petitioner, whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented the fourth respondent. A.1 to A.3, who are respondents 1 to 3, indeed engaged an advocate. However, there was no representation on behalf of them before me. 3. At the out set, it may be noticed that the task of a complainant in a petition challenging the acquittal is stricter than the task of an accused in trying to disprove the case of the prosecution. The de facto complainant not only should show that the accused was guilty but must further establish that the judgment of the trial Court or the appellate Court, as the case may be, was not only incorrect, but also that the appreciation of the evidence is so perverse, as there is need for the revisional Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses deserves to be examined keeping this legal position in mind. 4. It is a matrimonial dispute. The first accused was the husband of the deceased Naga Prasanna Lakshmi. A.2 is the younger brother of A.1. A.3 is the mother of A.1 and A.2. On 20.01.2003, Naga Prasanna Lakshmi committed suicide by hanging herself. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, that the accused treated the deceased cruelly, threatened and intimidated the deceased and abetted the deceased to commit suicide, so much so, the deceased committed suicide and that the accused thus committed the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 and 306 IPC. 5. Lengthy evidence was recorded so far as PWs.1 & 2 are concerned. I may refer to the evidence of other witnesses before I consider the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. 6. The deceased was a resident of Mydukur after her marriage, living in the house of her husband (A.1). PW.3 was running a small vegetable shop –- more a bunk –- opposite to the house of the accused. He obviously knew the accused as well as the deceased. He deposed that the deceased never raised any alarm regarding the ill-treatment by the accused towards her. He indeed deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, but qualified that the deceased was suffering from poor memory and was not in the habit of responding to the call of PW.3 on occasions. This is against the case of PWs.1 and 2 that the accused used to ill-treat the deceased and used to treat the deceased cruelly. 7. PW.4 is a private medical practitioner to whom the deceased was taken after the deceased was lowered from the hanging position. PW.4 claimed that the deceased was dead by the time she was taken to PW.4. PW.3, however, deposed that when he heard information that the deceased was hanging in the house of her husband, PW.3 and others lowered the deceased from the ceiling fan and that when they gave water, the deceased consumed the same. In other wards, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 would show that by the time the deceased was lowered from the hanging position, she was alive and that unfortunately, by the time she was taken to PW.4, she breathed her last. 8. PW.5 was a mediator before whom PW.6- Mandal Revenue Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.7 is the inquest report. PW.5 and other mediators opined that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan in her house. Again, PWs.5 and 6 proved that the deceased committed suicide. Whether the commission of the suicide was on account of cruelty and intimidation by A.1 to A.3 and whether A.1 to A.3 abetted the deceased to commit suicide, however, are the pertinent questions. Ex.P.8 is the post-mortem certificate. PW.7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, considered that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia on account of hanging. PW.8 would not and obviously could not state why the deceased committed suicide. PW.8 is the Investigating Officer. He merely recorded the complaint and proceeded with the case. PWs.3 to 8 thus do not establish any of the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 306 IPC. 9. It is only PWs.1 and 2 who spoke about the main case. I am afraid that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is the evidence of interested witnesses. It is true that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discounted but deserves to be examined with circumspection. It is certainly not safe to base conviction on the testimony of interested witnesses. Worse would be the position if the evidence of interested witnesses does not corroborate the evidence of other witnesses. 10. PWs.1 and 2 more or less corroborate each other on almost all facts. The evidence of PW.1 is a long story. PW.1 is a resident of Allagadda, Kurnool District. He has been working as a Conductor in APSRTC. The deceased is his daughter. PW.2 is his wife. He celebrated the marriage of the deceased with A.1 on 24.10.1999 at TTD Choultry, Yerraguntla. The deceased lived happily with A.1 for about two years after the marriage. 11. The main case of PWs.1 and 2 starts thereafter. PW.1’s evidence is: a) The deceased gave birth to two sons during her wedlock with A.1. A.1 to A.3 and the deceased lived together at Mydukur. The deceased used to complain to PWs.1 and 2 that A.1 to A.3 used to beat her demanding her to procure additional dowry in the shape of cash and gold. PW.1 used to console the deceased telling her that PW.1 did not have capacity to fulfil the demand of A.1 to A.3. b) In December, 2002, the marriage of the eldest son of PW.1 was fixed to be celebrated in February, 2003. The accused reiterated their demand for additional dowry thereafter. On 18.01.2003, the accused necked out the deceased from the matrimonial home on the ground that the deceased could not satisfy their demand for additional dowry. When the deceased informed the same, PW.1 and his youngest son Nageshwar Rao left Dornipadu village and reached Mydukur at 4.30 p.m. on 18.01.2003 itself. PW.1 and his youngest son went to the house of the accused and questioned them about their harassment towards the deceased. A.1 replied that PW.1 did not present anything to the second son of A.1 at the time of the naming ceremony (Namakarnam) of the second son of A.1 and the deceased. A.1 further found fault with PW.1 for not giving anything to A.1 at the time of the marriage of the eldest son of PW.1. c) A.1 informed PW.1 that PW.1 would be in trouble if the demand of A.1 for additional dowry in cash and gold were not met. When PW.1 reacted informing A.1 that PW.1 paid cash and gold at the time of the marriage of A.1 with the deceased, A.1 and A.2 grew wild and attempted to beat PW.1. PW.1 decided to lodge a complaint to police against A.1 and A.2. The deceased, however, intervened stating that in the interest of her family life, PW.1 might not lodge complaint. d) As things stood thus, on 20.01.2003, at about 1.45 p.m., the sons and wife (PW.2) of PW.1 went to the Allagadda bus stand and informed PW.1 that A.2 had telephonically informed PW.2 and others that the deceased died on account of heart attack. e) PW.1, PW.2 and others went to Mydukur. They found ligature marks over the neck of the deceased. PW.1 decided to report to police that the death of the deceased was not natural. A.1 and A.2 then confined PW.1 and others threatening and demanding them to report to police that the death of the deceased was natural. As A.1 and A.2 detained PW.2 and her two sons and asked PW.1 to go to the police station and inform police that the death of the deceased was natural, PW.1 had no alternative but to inform police in accordance with the directions of A.1 and A.2. When PW.1 returned to the house of A.1 and A.2 to collect his wife and children, A.1 and A.2 confined PW.1 also in the house for about an hour. f) When the MRO was visiting the house, taking away the second son of PW.1 aside and detaining him, A.1 and A.2 blackmailed PW.1 and others to speak to the MRO as if the death of the deceased was natural. Considering that nothing would happen even if PW.1 reported the truth to the MRO, PW.1 spoke to the MRO in terms of the direction of A.1 and A.2. PWs.1 and 2 and their children were later allowed to go away from the house of A.1 and A.2. Then all of them returned to Dornipadu village where they were residing, as the men of A.1 and A.2 saw to that PWs.1 and 2 and their children boarded the bus. On the next day morning, PW.1 again went to the Mydukur police station at about 10 a.m. and lodged Ex.P.2 complaint. This is the basic story of PW.1. 12. PW.2 more or less corroborated the evidence of PW.1. Can the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 be accepted? 13. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would appear to be highly artificial. PW.1 had several occasions to have interaction with police and revenue officials. He had been taken to the police station. He had been to the presence of the MRO. At neither of the times PW.1 spoke about the wrongful confinement and wrongful restrainment as well as the conduct of A.1 and A.2. PW.1 could have informed police as to what happened in reality and could have informed police that PW.2 and the sons of PWs.1 and 2 were detained by the accused. Police could have taken care of the welfare of the family members of PW.1. The reason offered by PW.1 for uttering falsehood before the police in the shape of Ex.P.1 has not been satisfactorily explained. Indeed, PW.1 offered explanation. For the reasons mentioned above, the explanation is not satisfactory. 14. PW.1 thereafter had occasioned to appear before the MRO. When PW.6-MRO came to the house of the deceased, PW.1 could have informed the MRO as to what happened and what was going on. PW.6 would have taken steps so that the other members of the family of PW.1 were released from the clutches of A.1 and A.2. PW.1 again did not choose to offer any explanation why PW.1 did not speak the truth before the MRO. Added to it, it is the case of PW.3 that by the time PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused in the evening of 20.01.2003, PW.1 was in a drunken state and that PW.1 created a scene. 15. PW.1 was a member of one of the unions of APSRTC. If the accused threatened PW.1, PW.1 could have reported the conduct of the accused to the union in which he was a member. The parties in PWs.1 and 2 and the accused are Hindus. It is the case of PW.3 that Muslim families reside around the house of the accused. It is a Muslim, who have taken the dead body of the deceased to PW.4. PW.1 could have reported the conduct of A.1 and A.2 to any of these Muslim families, who would have come to the rescue of PWs.1 and 2. PWs.1 and 2 did not do so. No explanation is offered why PWs.1 and 2 did not take the assistance of Muslim families situate around the house of the accused. 16. Exs.P.1 and 2 are the two complaints. Both of them were lodged by PW.1. In Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that the deceased committed suicide at her volition. In Ex.P.2, he claimed that the deceased died on account of dowry harassment, criminal intimidation and abetment to commit suicide. 17. It is the further case of PW.1 that A.1 and A.2 convened a Panchayat after the death of the deceased on 27.07.2003 at Brahmamgari Mattam Village, with the senior paternal uncle of A.1 by name Venkata Subbaiah and one Vanipetta Seshidar acting as mediators. It is his case that A.1 offered mediation and a compromise and that PWs.1 and 2 did not agree for the same. He further contended that on 30.07.2003 A.1 issued Ex.P.3 legal notice to PW.1 with false allegations and that PW.1 issued a reply, the office copy of which is Ex.P.4. It is also contended by PW.1 that A.1 convened a second panchayat on 21.07.2004 and made an offer to settle the dispute and that PW.1 again refused to compromise the matter. None of these contentions have been proved by PW.1. 18. PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 claiming that the death of the deceased was natural and that A.1 and A.3 have no complicity in the death of the deceased. He lodged a diagonally opposite complaint under Ex.P.2. PWs.1 & 2 offered explanation in what circumstances Ex.P.1 complaint was initially lodged by PW.1. This claim of PWs.1 and 2 has not been proved either by PW.1 or PW.2 through any independent evidence. I have already pointed out that the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Apart from PWs.1 and 2, no one supported this stand of PWs.1 and 2. There was no whisper in the evidence of other witnesses that the deceased was ill-treated or treated cruelly by A.1 to A.3 leading to the offence u/s.498-A IPC, that the accused intimidated the deceased and PWs.1 and 2 and thus committed the offence u/s.506 IPC and that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide and that they thus committed the offence u/s.306 IPC. As already pointed out, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 by itself is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused much less beyond reasonable doubt. 19. So far as the present revision is concerned, the evidence of PWs.3 to 8 leads to an inference that the accused could be not guilty. In this background, the trial Court certainly cannot be found fault with for acquitting the accused. As already pointed out by me, PW.1 must not only prove that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but PW.1 must further show that the judgment of the trial Court was so perverse as to be interfered with. PW.1 established neither of the circumstances. I, therefore, see no merits in this revision, where the finding of the trial Court is reasonable and where the conclusion reached by the trial court is also plausible. 20. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 09.11.2011 Isn