1 APHC010290072015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1551/2015 Between: 1. BORA NAOOKARAJU, S/O. LATE RAMU LORRY DRIVER, R/O. D.NO.17-247/1, OLD GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN & DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through Station House Officer Gopalapatnam P.S., Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case to this Honorable Court aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in Crl.A.No.60 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhaptanam Dt.28.07.2015 in Sentencing the petitioner to undergo R.I for a period of 1 year and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he is further sentenced to undergo S.I for one Month for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC by confirming the conviction & Sentence passed in CC.No.642/2006 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam. Dt:16.02.2010. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 2433 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the Judgment in CC.No.642/2006 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam. Dt:16.02.2010. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 2446 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the sentence and conviction passed in Crl.A.No.60 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhaptanam Dt.28.07.2015 in Sentencing the petitioner to undergo R.I for a period of 1 year and also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he is further sentenced to undergo S.I for one Month for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of IPC by confirming the conviction & Sentence passed in CC.No.642/2006 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam, Dt:16.02.2010, and enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1551/2015 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, representing Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner/Accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State/Complainant. 2. The Petitioner was arrayed as Accused in CCNo.642 of 2006 and charged for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A Criminal case was set into motion in terms of report filed by the de- fact complainant who happens to be the wife of petitioner. 4. In a nutshell the prosecution case is that: the marriage between P.W.1 and petitioner was happened in the year 2002. At the time of marriage, sister of P.W.1 gave Rs.20000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the accused towards dowry. During valid wedlock between the parties, one daughter and one son were born. Accused was a lorry driver, who did not provide money to the P.W.1 for domestic needs and also beats P.W.1 when she asked for money for her house maintenance. The Accused also demanded further dowry from her parents saying that the dowry brought by her was very less and also threatened P.W.1 that if she could not accommodate the dowry, he would marry another girl accepting huge dowry. Their Relatives intends to minimize their dispute, but it 4 was not settled. On 10.05.2006 accused brought one lady to home saying that he had married that lady. Hence, the report was lodged to the police. 5. Investigation by the police ended in charge sheet against Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During the evidence, the prosecution has examined 5 (five) witnesses and also exhibited some documents. On the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the learned trial court has exonerated the Petitioner/ Accused from the charge under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and found the Accused to be guilty for an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). Against such order of conviction Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam vide Criminal Appeal (Crl.A) No.60 of 2010. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties has confirmed the order of conviction. Hence, this Revision Case. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is illegal and improper. He again submits that the learned Trial Court has not carefully gone through the evidence on record. Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice. He further contended that the prosecution has contended that at the time of marriage the dowry amounting Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) 5 was given to the petitioner by the sister of P.W.1, but whereas the evidence shows that the dowry was paid by parents of P.W.1. He again argued that P.W.3, who is the brother of the petitioner, though during examination-in-chief has deposed in favour of the prosecution, but during cross examination he has disclosed the fact that he had no contract with the petitioner’s family since the year 2005. Thus, he has no acquaintance or information regarding the alleged allegation in the criminal case. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the cross examination of P.W.3 and submits that the prosecution case cannot said to be proved on the basis of cross examination of P.W.3. It is further contention of the petitioner that P.W.4 so-called eyewitness is not a neighbour, but he is a person resides more than 15 K.Ms away from the residence of petitioner. Thus, his evidence is not believable. 9. This is the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the definition of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code enumerated the definition of cruelty upon married woman. The definition was mentioned in explanation of the said section. 10. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically pointed out that which cruelty could justify the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the allegation in the 6 prosecution case i.e., the demand of dowry and payment of dowry is general and omnibus, there is no particular nature of demand of dowry. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasizes that in the entire prosecution case it is not proved that how much amount of money was demanded by the petitioner from P.W.1. He further submits that the date and nature of dowry was not specified in the prosecution case. Thus the prosecution has not categorically proved the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In support of his contention, he cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Digambar and another … Appellant(s) Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondent(s) in Criminal Appeal No.___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2122 of 2020) dated 20.12.202. He referred paragraphs No.17, 18 and 22 of the said decision. For the better appreciation of the merits of this matter, let the paragraphs as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner set out hereunder. “17. Firstly, the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 7 Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 18. The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfill the requirement of the second part are found. 22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing respondent No.2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus”. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasized that in explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the demand by the Accused for any property or valuable security has to be proved. The valuable security has been defined under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not include any money. Thus, the demand of dowry cannot be termed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuting the contention of the Petitioner submits that the gist of the case of the prosecution is the demand of dowry and torture affected upon the de-facto complainant by the petitioner, has been properly made out against the petitioner. He submits that P.W.1 is the de- facto complainant herself, who corroborated the prosecution case. P.W.2 being the parent/mother of the petitioner/P.W.1 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the independent witness who has seen the offence of torture inflicted by the petitioner upon P.W.1; P.W.5 is the Investigation Officer of this case. In a nutshell, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that if the evidentiary value of P.W.3 is not considered, then also the other evidences successfully proved the prosecution case. 14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the accused being the lorry driver has harassed P.W.1 by not giving the necessary money for her household maintenance. This is one type of cruelty upon the married lady. He further submits that the demand of the Petitioner for bringing money from the parents of P.W.1 has been sufficiently uttered by P.W.1 and corroborated by other Prosecution Witnesses. Thus, the demand of dowry has been sufficiently proved. He further submits that the demand of money can come under the definition of “property” in explanation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has scanned the evidences and passed the order of conviction, thereafter said conviction order was properly 9 scanned by the learned Appellate Court who has categorically observed the findings of the learned Trial Court and has came to the opinion that the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court suffers no illegality. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no illegality in the Conviction Order passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. There is no merit to entertain this Criminal Revision Case. 15. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and also considering case facts in hand, it appears that after marriage, P.W.1 was staying at the house of petitioner as wife along with her children. The torture as narrated in the prosecution case is that, firstly the petitioner did not provide money for domestic needs to the petitioner/P.W.1 and consequently he beats P.W.1 whenever she asked money for her house maintenance and in turn demanded her to bring money from her parents. These facts of torture has narrated in the prosecution case, has been supported by P.W’s.1, 2, 3 and 4. P.W.3 though being the brother of the petitioner initially supported prosecution case, but later appeared by virtue of a recall petition and deposed opposite to his examination- in-chief; as there are a contradictory statement by same witness, the evidentiary value of the P.W.3 cannot be considered to justify the prosecution case. 16. Let us see whether the evidence of P.W’s.1, 2, 4 and 5 is sufficient to record the conviction against the present petitioner. A thorough perusal of the evidence on record has scanned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned 10 Appellate Court it appears that the instance of torture for not providing money as well as demand of Petitioner to bring money from her Parents has been sufficiently uttered by the other witnesses. P.W.4 is an ocular witness who have seen the incident. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.W.4 was residing at a distance of 15 K.Ms from the residence of the petitioner. This point was never raised before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, it is not obligatory for an eyewitness to reside nearby the house of the Petitioner to see an incident. 17. Let me consider regarding merit of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding definition of “cruelty” as enumerated under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. The definition of cruelty has been set out in explanations (a) and (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. If we read out explanation (a) “cruelty” 11 means and includes – “any willful conduct of offender …………. which drive the woman to commit suicide ………….. or to cause grave injury or danger to life, lime or health (mental or physical) of a woman”. So, after dissections the said provision, it is the duty of the prosecution regarding the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to prove that - there must have a willful conduct by the offender to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health (mental or physical) of the woman. 18. In this case, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not provide money to P.W.1 to maintain household, which drive the P.W.1 and her children to suffer starvation, by such it cause the deterioration of health, both physical and mental, to P.W.1. In considering attending facts and circumstances, it appears to me that beating a woman as well as causing a woman to starve also comes under the definition of “cruelty” as enumerated under explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 19. According to the explanation (b) of the same Section, let me consider whether “demand of dowry” or “demand of money” is comes under the definition of cruelty. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has emphasized that the unlawful demand for any property or valuable security can come under the definition of cruelty, but in this case the explanation (b) does not refer regarding demanding of any dowry or money. The definition of “valuable security” is defined under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code which itself is a document and not the case 12 of the prosecution. He further submits that the property has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the money or demand of dowry cannot come under explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 20. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code defines valuable security which does not have enumerated, particularly in this case, the demand of money and the demand of dowry is not a valuable security. The “movable property” has been defined under Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code which enumerated as follows:- “the words “movable property” are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth”. So, definition of movable property includes “corporal property of any description”, includes the money also. Thus, in explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code denote “any property” which includes money as well as dowry, everything. So, in my view, the demand of dowry and demand of money also within the definition of “any property” as defined under the explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 21. In this particular case, after going through the entire evidence and exhibits and also going through the Judgments passed by the learned Trial Court and as well as Appellate Court, it appears to me that the Trial Court or the Appellate Court have committed no error in appreciating the facts by finding the 13 Petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I make it clear that there may be some discrepancies in the prosecution case, that itself does not construe that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the Petitioner/Accused. 22. Under the above observation, I find no justification to entertain Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, the order of conviction passed against the Petitioner/Accused appears to me justifiable one. The instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this court during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case is hereby vacated. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within two (2) weeks from the date of passing of this Judgment to serve out remaining portion of the sentence, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner to comply the order of this court. Accordingly, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS1 14 87 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1551/2015 DATED 25.11.2025. KS1