Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE L. Narasimha Reddy
Bandakuri Parvathi Vs. Bandakuri Vijaya Kumar & Anr. On 11 February 2003
Law Point:
Difference between wife and husband cannot be branded as cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code : Ingredients not even alleged, much less proved : Order of acquittal cannot be converted to one of conviction in revision.
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a revision filed by the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 692 of 1999 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, challenging the order dated 30.12.2000 acquitting the accused therein.
2. The petitioner herein submitted a complaint Ex. P-1 alleging that her marriage with the accused took place on 31.5.1997. They were blessed with a female child. She alleged that after the birth of the female child, the accused started demanding dowry and was harassing her. She was taken to her parents’ house in the year 1999 on account of ill-health. On 13.7.1999 the mother of the accused came to the house of the parents of P.W. 1 and asked her to accompany to their house. P.W. 1 could not accompany her mother-in-law on account of her continued ill-health. It is alleged that after her mother-in-law left, the accused together with three others came there and insisted that P.W. 1 should accompany him to his house. On her refusal, he raised a dispute and during the course of the same, he held the tuft of P.W. 1. Due to intervention of neighbours the accused and his followers left the place.
3. With these allegations the prosecution filed a charge-sheet alleging offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. against the accused. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-3 were marked. P.W. 1 is the petitioner herein and P.W. 2 is her mother. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are outsiders said to have witnessed the incident.
4. Mr. T.S.N. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has established that the accused caught hold of the tuft of the petitioner herein and that is sufficient to hold that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. It is also his case that the Trial Court ought to have convicted the petitioner on the basis of the evidence on record.
5. In Ex. P-1 the petitioner herein has narrated the factum as to her marriage with the accused and the various developments that have taken place thereafter. The gravamen of the complaint is as to the incident that is said to have taken place on 13.7.1999. Even if the contents of Ex. P-1 in this regard are taken on their face value, they are only to the effect that the accused and her mother have come to the residence of the parents of the petitioner and insisted on her to follow her to go to their residence. While the mother of the accused is said to have gone, the accused together with three others have come after some time and raised a dispute in which the accused is said to have caught hold of the tuft of the petitioner. Even according to the contents of Ex. P-1, the whole incident took place in the course of either persuading or insisting or compelling the petitioner to return to the house of the accused. It was not even alleged that the accused had resorted to harassment of the petitioner, with a view to compel her to bring dowry. The Trial Court found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was a substantial improvement over the contents of Ex. P-1. It further recorded a finding that the depositions of P.Ws. 3 and 4 are at variance with those of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Every act that may have resulted on account of differences between the wife and husband cannot be branded as cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498A, I.P.C. It is only when the acts complained of are wilful in nature and accentuated with the object of coercing the wife or any person related to her to meet the unlawful demand for any property or valuable security; that an offence under Section 498A can be said to have been committed. None of these ingredients are even alleged, much less proved the present case.
6. At any rate, no procedural irregularity said to have been committed by the Trial Court is pointed out. The scope of interference under Section 401, Cr.P.C., against an order of acquittal is very limited. Even where two views are possible and the Trial Court has taken one such view, this Court cannot interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. It is only where any procedural irregularity is committed or where the order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law that this Court can consider the feasibility of ordering retrial on rehearing of the matter. The order of acquittal cannot be converted to the one of conviction, in a revision.
The Crl.R.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment