CRLRC/1763/2011 of KESHABOINA RAVISHANKER AND 2 OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF A.P. on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the [judgment ]dated29.08.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007 on the file of the Court ofthe learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,whereunder, the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment of one yearand fine of Rs.1,000/- each imposed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad, Malkajgiri upon the revision petitioners for the offences punishableunder Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.290 of 2005, was confirmed.29.08.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007 on the file of the Court ofthe learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,whereunder, the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment of one yearand fine of Rs.1,000/- each imposed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad, Malkajgiri upon the revision petitioners for the offences punishableunder Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.290 of 2005, was confirmed.

2- The case of the prosecutron in nutshell is that the marriage between thefirst petitioner and the de facto complainant took place on 19.06.1997 atHyderabad and out of their wedlock a son was borne on 10.08.1998. Theallegatron of the de facto complainant is that at the time of marriage her parentsgave Rs. 2,00,000i- and 50 tolas of gold, 5 kgs silver, house hold articles andclothes etc. Thereafter the petitioners started harassing the de facto complainantto get additional dowry under the threat that the first petitioner would attemptsuiode and as such unable to bear the harassment, she went to her parents'house. There also the petitroners went and assaulted the parents of the de factocomplarnant. abused and threatened and subjected the de facto complainant tocruelty.

3. It was further alleged that the Petitioner No. 1 was in illegal intimacy withone girl name Kavitha @ Mrudula and that he used to bring her home and spend

time with her and asked his son to cali the defacto complainant ,Aaya, and thatKavita as'Mummy'. The petitioner No.1 used to indiscriminately beat her andthat the said Kavita arso tortured and asked the de-facto comprainant to reatethe house' The [petitioner ]No.1 used to come home in drunken state and used toKavita as'Mummy'. The petitioner No.1 used to indiscriminately beat her andthat the said Kavita arso tortured and asked the de-facto comprainant to reatethe house' The [petitioner ]No.1 used to come home in drunken state and used toforce and demand her to sign on white papers to gtve consent for secondmarriage and that the petitioner No.l consumed sreeping pirs with a view tothreaten the de-facto comprainant to reave the house. That due to increasedharassment, the de facto harassment, the de facto cornplainant consumed sleeping pills on 17.04.2002and that the petitioners did not bother to take her to the hospitar and that defacto facto comprainant terephoned to her sister and brothei--in-.raw who admitted herto Gandhi Hospital aM got treatment. to Gandhi Hospital aM got treatment. After discharge, the de facto complalnantwent to her parents,house and on 19.05.2001 at about 2.00 pM, the petitionersalong with their famiry friends by name Krishna Reddy and one Aunty went tothe parental house to settre the dispute and instead the petitioners assaurted thewent to her parents,house and on 19.05.2001 at about 2.00 pM, the petitionersalong with their famiry friends by name Krishna Reddy and one Aunty went tothe parental house to settre the dispute and instead the petitioners assaurted thefather of the de facto complainant. Unable to bear rarith the harassment, the defacto complaint rodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in CrimeNo.119/2002 u/ss.498A, 323 & 506 IpC and charge sheet was fited.facto complaint rodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in CrimeNo.119/2002 u/ss.498A, 323 & 506 IpC and charge sheet was fited.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined p.Ws.l to 6 and gotmarked Exs.p. 1 and p.2. On the other hand, the petitioners got examined oneYadagiri as D.W.1, but they did not mark any documents.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire material available onrecord, found the petitioners not guilty of the offences punishable under sectrons 323 and 506 IPC and acquitted them of the said offences, however found thepetitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC andaccordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment of one'year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, byjudgment dated 07.5.2007.year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, byjudgment dated 07.5.2007.

6. Aggiieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 92 of2007 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar. However, the learned appellate Court, by Judgmentdated 29.08.2011, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by thelearned trial Court in CC No. 290/2005. Hence the present criminal revision case.

7. During the pendency of this revision, the second petitioner died; hencethe case against the second petitioner was dismissed as abated.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that theinvestigating officer has done table investigation; there is no evidence toestablish that the de Facto complainant consumed sleeping pills due to theharassment meted out and also about her admission in Gandhi Hospital. Further,except the interested evidence of relatives of the de-facto complainant, there isno independent wrtness available on record in this regard. The Courts below,without evaluating the evidence available on record and also the circumstancesagainst the case of the prosecution, have erroneously found the petitionersg{lty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. In support of their case,the'petitioners filed medical certificates of accused Nos.1 and 3 and death certificate oF accused No.2. in support of his contentions, learned counsel [for]

the petitioners relied upon the following decisions:

(1) Kahkshan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar andothersl.

(2) Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2.

(3) Satish Kumar Batra and others vs.State of Haryana3.

(4) Niyas vs.The State of Kerala, represented by the PublicProsecutor, High Court of Keral, ErnakutamaProsecutor, High Court of Keral, Ernakutama

9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehementlyopposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending [that ][both ][the]Courts below have meticulously and minutely rrutinized [th€ ][evidence ][available]on record and found the [petitioners ][guilty ]for the offence [punishable ][under]Section 498-A IPC while finding them not [guilty ]for the offences [punishable]under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and that there [is no ][perversity ][in the ][said]findings and hence the same cannot be Interfered with through [this ][criminal]revrsron case.

10. In the light of the above rival submissions, this [Court has gone ][through]the evidence avarlable on record. PW1 herself [is ][the ][de-facto complainant ][and]PWs.2 to 4 are her father, brother-in-law and sister. [Their ][evidence depicted the]things prior to and after the marriage of [de-facto ][complainant ][with ][the ][1't]petrtioner and also her plight at her in-laws'house due to the harassment [meted]

r 2022 LrveLaw (5C) 141

2 Crimrnal App€al No.1457 of 2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court I Crrmrnal Appeal No.976 of 2OO I of Hon'ble Supreme Court I C(urunr-rl Revisron Petrtron No.1 oF 2OO7 agarnst CRLA No.288 of 2005

out by the petitioners. They also deposed that after consuming sleeping pills,since her husband did not provide medical aid, they admitted the de-factocomplainant in hospital and after discharge, they took her to their house and'when they questioned the petitioners regarding the ill-treatment and harassmentmeted out towards the de-facto complainant the petitioners and others beatPWs.1 to 4. Further, it is also their evidence that the petitioners threatened andpressurised PW1 to give consent for marriage of her husband with another girl.PWl alleged illicit relationship of her husband with one girl by name Kavitha.PWs.2 to 4, though they did not witness each and every incident of harassmentmeted out to PW1 at her in-laws' house, they heard the same through PWl andsome incidents were witnessed by them.

11. Evidence of DW1, father-in-law of PW1/de-facto complainant depicts thatthey treated PW1 as daughter, she herself used to leave the house withoutinforming anybody, PW1 behaved abnormally with her brother-in-law/Pw3, PW1used to take sleeping pills due to the sound/snorrng sleep of his son, PW1 usedto quarrel with her husband demanding to put-up a separate family and that hisson filed Divorce OP No.302 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judge, FamilyCourt, Secunderabad, PW1 filed MC No.15 of 2005 before the said Court seekingmaintenance. However, PW1's behaviour with PW3 was brought into picture forthe first time in the evidence of DW1 in this case and there is no whisperregarding the same anywhere in the Divorce OP.

_-.r_

72. The contention oF the petitioners that except the interested witnesses likePWs.1 to 4 there h no independent witness to prove the case of the prosecut.ronregarding the harassment meted out to pwl cannot stand for legal scrutiny siflcegenerally people do not want to discrose such type of incirlents and quarrelsamong the nerghbours. Further, the petitioners/accused have every opportunityto challenge the evidence of pws.l. to 4 by cross-examining thern but their cross-examlnation did not elicit any incriminating material to doubt the veracity of theirevidence. Thouqh [pw1 ]contended that due to the harassment meted out by thepetitioners, she attempted suicide and got admitted in the hospital, in theabsence of any supporting oral or documentary evidence, the same cannot bewholly believed. Further, there is no iota of evidence on record to show thecause of PW1's admission into the hospital and the nature of treatment receivedby her.

13. The above discussed facts and evidence clearly revealed the scenario ofskirmishes bewveen the couple and parenls at both ends. However, the aboveevidence and circumstances did not reveal any act of voluntarily causing hurt toPW1 or intimidating PW1 to commit suicide. In that aspect, the prosecutionfailed to prove the ingredienls attracting the offences punishable under Section323 and 506 of IPC. However, the prosecution could able to prove theingredients of section 498-4 Ipc against the petitioners with cogent andconvincing evidence. In that view of the matter, the finding of both the Courtsbelow cannot be termed as erroneous and the same cannot be interfered with by - this court. The grounds urged by the petitioners have no force warrantinginterference of this court with the well reasoned and sustainable findings of boththe Courts below.

14. so far as the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners andthe Rne amount awarded against them is concerned, the crime was registered inthe year ZbOZ and since then, the petitioners have been roaming around theCoufts and in that view of the matter this court feers that the said mentar agonyand trauma faced by the petitioners itserf is a sufficient ground to take a renientview in their favour. Accordingry, this court is rncrined to reduce the period ofimprisonment awarded to the petitioners to that of the period, which they havealready undergone.

15' so far as the fine amount is concerned, this court is of the view that thesame may be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each.

16. In the result, except the above modification with regard to the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners and enhancement in the fine amountimposed against them, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, isdismissed. Interlocutory apprications, if any pending, shal arso stand dismissed.dismissed. Interlocutory apprications, if any pending, shal arso stand dismissed.

SD/-K SAILESHIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

, 1. The lV Additionat Sessions-Ju9gu, Metropotitan Magistrat6 at .R3lgg rvairalsiri,-'Cyllrauao. Reddy District ar L B.NagarILir,L. Ranga ReddyILir,L. Ranga Reddy t 3. The Station House Officer, Neredmet police Station, Malkajgiril}3"?"",,""1",the [P{blic e'.oducriof ][Hish ][coi;;#il: ][btii" ][oii"rrnsun" ][ut]l}3"?"",,""1",the [P{blic e'.oducriof ][Hish ][coi;;#il: ][btii" ][oii"rrnsun" ][ut]

6. 5. One CC to SRI.JAVED RAZACK, Advocare lopuclTwo CD CopiesTwo CD Copies I

II

1. I

j

i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDERCRLRC.No.1763 ot [2011]

DISMISSING THE [CRL.RC]

(^\l\-{-o

I HE [S,4]iq($'(r.)15 nhn lff/t:C,6"itI