CRLRC/1415/2006 of Md.Arif Basha, Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, LANDO, Krishna District, on 31 December 2013

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1415 OF 2006--Dated 31122013

Between:Md.Arif Basha.

..Petitioner.

And:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,.Hyderabad …Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1415 OF 2006ORDER:

This revision is preferred against judgmentdated 7-8-2006 in Criminal AppealNo.207 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Additional District andSessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Krishna atVijayawada whereunder the conviction and sentencepassed in C.C.No.438 of 2002 on 29-10-2004 by the IVMetropolitan Magistrate -cum-Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada, is confirmed.

2. The brief facts leading to this revision are asfollows:

Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) KrishnaLanka Police Station filed charge sheet stating thataccused is a resident of Gowthaminagar Krishnalanka,Vijayawada and while P.W.1 was learning tailoring work inthe house of P.W.8, he developed intimacy with her andpromised to marry her and that P.W.1 believed his versionand went with him to his friend’s room. The accusedcohabited with her on the false promise of marrying her inJune, 2001 and subsequently, he cohabited with her nowand then. As the accused failed to comply with thepromise of marrying her, she lodged a complaint withpolice on 5-3-2002 and on investigation, it is found that accused cheated P.W.1. The trial Court after framingappropriate charge, conducted trial and during trial, eightwitnesses are examined and seven documents aremarked on behalf of prosecution. No witnesses areexamined and no documents are marked on behalf ofdefence. On an overall consideration of oral anddocumentary evidence, the trial court found the accusedguilty for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. andsentenced him for nine months Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, appeal ispreferred to the court of Session and the VIII AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Krishna atVijayawada, dismissed the appeal and confirmed theconviction and sentence. Now, aggrieved by thejudgment of the courts below, the present revision ispreferred.

3. Heard both sides.

4. It is the contention of revision petitioner thatthe lower appellate court failed to observe that theprosecution did not prove dishonest intention which ismain ingredient for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. Itis further contended that both the courts failed to noticethat the evidence of P.W.1 i.e., victim is not at allsupported by any independent evidence and wronglyrelied on self serving testimony of P.W.1 to convict therevision petitioner. Both the courts wrongly drawnadverse inference like a matrimonial case for convictingthe accused.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended thatboth the courts rightly appreciated evidence on recordand that there are no grounds to interfere with theconcurrent findings of trial court and appellate court. Hefurther submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is consistentand convincing. Simply because, independent witnesseshave not fully corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, thatcannot be a ground to acquit the accused.

6. Now the point that would arise for myconsideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?

7. POINT:

It is the case of prosecution that during 2001 whileP.W.1 was learning tailoring work in the house of ShaikPyari (P.W.5), the accused developed intimacy with herand with a false promise of marrying her cohabited withP.W.1. It is also alleged that due to co-habitation, P.W.1 became pregnant and when she askedthe accused to marry her, she bluntly refused on theground that his family members are not agreeable for theirmarriage. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint. Thevictim as P.W.1 deposed as to how she was cheated bythe accused and also stated about the places to whereaccused took her and the way in which he cohabited withher. She was cross examined on behalf of the accusedbut except putting suggestions and eliciting some factswhich are not in dispute, nothing was brought on record todiscredit her testimony. From the evidence of P.W.1, it isalso clear that she gave birth to a male child and he wasone year old by the date of her examination. One of thecontentions of the accused is that there are disputesbetween his family and family of victim with regard toallotment of house sites in their area i.e., GowthamiNagar. According to accused, because of those disputes,he was falsely implicated. No doubt, P.W.1 admitted inher cross examination that there are disputes pendingbetween accused family and their family with regard toallotment of sites in their area. But simply because, thereare disputes, it cannot be accepted that P.W.1 would go tothe extent of speaking cohabitation with accused at thecost of her reputation and conduct and future life.

8. P.W.2 mother of P.W.1 corroborated theevidence of P.W.1 on all material aspects and in spite ofcross examination, nothing could be elicited to doubt hertestimony. Defence side failed to elicit any contradictions,omissions or improvements from the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2.

9. P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case and P.W.4 is a person who came to know about theincident through mother of the victim who also notsupported prosecution case.

10. P.Ws.5 and 6 have also not supported theprosecution case and because of that, the accusedcontended that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot beaccepted. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is withoutany contradictions, omissions and improvements whichare supported with the contents of F.I.R. and othercircumstances, the objection with regard to their evidenceis not tenable.

11. One more objection raised on behalf ofaccused is that there was no immediate report to thepolice but this objection also cannot be sustainedbecause from the evidence of P.W.1, she has beenrequesting the accused to marry her and that the accusedwas pretending to marry her and when she disclosed thatshe became pregnant then only the accused affirmativelydenied the request of P.W.1 for marriage and therefore,there is nothing wrong in not giving complaint to policeimmediately. Further, in cases of this nature, deceivedlady will try till last and only when there is no hope ofgetting any favour from the cheated person, then onlyresort to giving a complaint to police. So, there is nothingunnatural for P.W.1 to wait for some time without givingany report.

12. Both the courts have considered elaboratelythe objections of the defence with reference to evidenceon record and I do not find any wrong appreciation by thecourts below.

13. On a scrutiny of the material on record, trialCourt rightly convicted the accused which is upheld by theappellate court. Therefore, I am of the view that there areno grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of thecourts below and as such, the revision is liable to bedismissed as devoid of merits.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision isdismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of thesentence.

15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, theMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall standdismissed.

_______________________

JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

--Dated 31122013

Dvs.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

Dvs

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1415 OF 2006

--Dated 31122013