CRLA/1334/2012 of The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M.Gajendra Babu, on 28 December 2012

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal, by the State under Section 378 (3)&(1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directedagainst the judgment, dated 27.09.2007, in Calendar Case No.418 of2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari,whereunder and whereby, respondents/accused were acquitted of theoffences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 323 IPC andSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the presentCriminal Appeal may be stated as follows:

Marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 was performed on 25.02.2000 atC.V.R.Kalyana Mandapam, Nagari, as per Hindu rites. At the time ofmarriage, parents’ of P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash asdowry apart from gold and silver articles. Thereafter, A.1 and A.2started harassing P.W.1 physically and mentally for additional dowry. Unable to bear the said harassment, P.W.1 lodged a complaint withpolice. Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. Charges under Sections 498A, 506 and 323 IPC and Section 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed against the accused,read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleased notguilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecutionexamined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6.

5. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecutionwitnesses. The accused denied the same. On behalf of the accused,no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D-1 to D-19 were marked.

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, foundthe accused not guilty of the charges under Sections498A, 506 and 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as theprosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond allreasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging thesame, the present appeal is filed by the State.

7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are anysubstantial and compelling reasons to admit the appeal.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Statecontended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is very clear that theaccused demanded additional dowry and therefore, it is a fit case toadmit the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentscontended that the matter has already been settled in the Lok Adalat;that the complainant herself undertook to withdraw the criminal casefiled before this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumedto be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of law isfurther strengthened by an order of acquittal. In dealing with theappeal against the order of acquittal, there must be compelling orsubstantial reasons. The entire case rests upon the evidence ofP.W.1.

11. Admittedly P.Ws.2 to 4 came to know about the accuseddemanding additional dowry through P.W.1. P.Ws.4 to 7, who are the relatives of P.W.1, were present at the time of mediation that took placebetween A.1 and A.2 on one hand and P.Ws.1 to 3 on the other. Therefore, their evidence is not much relevant for the purpose ofproving the charge under Section 498A IPC.

12. According to P.W.1 in her earlier report, she stated that theaccused demanded her additional dowry at Aruru Village of Nagari. But she has not stated with regard to such demand of dowry by A.1and A.2. On the other hand, P.W.1 has categorically stated in hercross-examination that A.1 and A.2 demanded additional dowry only atBangalore when she was living with them. But, P.Ws.2 to 7 did notsay anything with regard to such demand. Except the solitaryevidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record to show thatshe was harassed by the accused for additional dowry. Since theevidence of P.W.1 is not consistent with regard to place where thedemand has been made, trial Court has not placed an implicit relianceon her evidence. Furthermore, if the evidence of P.W.1 is to beaccepted, the demand was made while she was residing with A.1 andA.2 at Bangalore. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bangalore,has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Furthermore, the matterhas been settled in the Lok Adalat, Nagari in M.C.No.2 of 2003 andone of the terms of compromise is that the petitioner has agreed not topursue the criminal proceedings. As the matter has been settled andthe parties are living separately, there are no compelling andsubstantial reasons to admit the appeal.

13. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage ofadmission itself. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in theCriminal Appeal shall stand closed.

DECEMBER 28, 2012

YVL

________________

K.C.BHANU, J

YVL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1334 OF 201228.12.2012