1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, passed in Crl.A.No.215 of 2012, dated 30.08.2013, by which the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498Aof I.P.C. in C.C.No.138 of 2008, dated 21.02.2012 by the XIII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad, was modified to one year rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner/accused, who is working as Police Constable, married the defacto complainant, K.Supriya, in the year 2001 and after marriage, he used to come to house in drunken condition and when she questioned about the same, he abused her and beat her indiscriminately and did not bother about the family expenditure. Once, the elders advised the revision petitioner/accused to behave properly, but few months after the advice, the revision petitioner/accused again started harassing the defacto complainant and on her information, the Women Protection Cell also conducted counselling, but in vain. Hence, the revision petitioner/accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 498Aof I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the revision petitioner/accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 498Aof I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the learned I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from two years to one year as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
5. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are unsustainable since the decision rendered by both the Courts is contrary to law and judicial precedents. The Courts below ought to have seen that the prosecution has never established the case set up by them. Further, the Courts below ought to have seen that Ex.P1 is not a complaint for dowry harassment, as such the Courts below cannot convict the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498Aof I.P.C. It is also stated that the appellate Court has not given any reasons and findings while confirming the conviction. It is also stated that the Courts below ought to have seen that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such the conviction and sentence are unsustainable.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgments of both the Courts below.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5. Out of them, P.W.1 is the victim, who gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police; P.W.2 is the father, P.W.3 is the uncle and P.W.4 is the mother of the P.W.1 and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer.
8. A perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that except P.Ws.2 to 4, who are interested witnesses, no other independent witness was examined by the prosecution. A perusal of Ex.P1 report would reveal that there is no averment with regard to payment of dowry by the parents of P.W.1 and also demand of additional dowry by the revision petitioner/accused. P.W.5-Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, categorically deposed that P.W.1 did not furnish any document to him with regard to alleged payment of dowry and other articles. He also admits that he did not examine either the house owner or the co-tenants, where P.W.1 and the revision petitioner/accused were residing. Hence, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to establish the alleged harassment said to have been made by the revision petitioner/accused towards P.W.1.
9. Apart from that, the defacto complainant obtained exparte decree of divorce in F.C.O.P.No.294 of 2013 and she also filed D.V.C.No.104 of 2012 with the same set of allegations. In the said D.V.C., the learned Magistrate gave a categorical finding that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner therein, the respondents, who are her husband and in-laws have not committed the acts of domestic violence.
10. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have given the findings on false assumption of facts, which are not sustainable and hence the same are liab
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
le to be set aside. 11. For the reasons stated above, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused, by the Courts below, for the offence punishable under Section 498Aof I.P.C, are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the said offence. The bail bonds, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled and his sureties shall be discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.