1 APHC010487262011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1153/2011 Between: 1. YARAGORLA SRINIVAS RAO, S/O RAMA KOTAIAH, GOVT. SERVICE R/O MIG B 12, DR.A.S.RAO NAGAR, SAINIKPURI, HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this Crl.A., and set-aside the record and proceedings in Crl.A.No.203 of 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna Dist., at Vijayawada and records and proceedings in C.C.No.1078 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., and acquit the present appellant/A1. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLAMP 1698 OF 2011 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 sentence and enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail, pending disposal of the appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed on him by the Hon'ble XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna Dist., at Vijayawada in Crl.A.No.203 of 2008, dated 12.09.2011. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLAMP 5574 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 pass orders. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. DR D V RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1153 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard Sri Dr. D.V. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant appears through virtual mode and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused who initially acquitted by the learned Trial Court for alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, thereafter State preferred an appeal wherein the present appellant was convicted. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued vividly regarding illegality of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court both in fact as well as in law. 4. In summarizing the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant are on two folds. Firstly, he submits that the prosecution case was alleged regarding the harassment upon the defacto complainant by the appellant only for reason of transfer of a house property in the name of accused No.1 which was standing in favour of defacto complainant. He submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any of such document regarding ownership of the property in the name of defacto complainant, the learned counsel has categorically argued that since no document is placed on behalf of prosecution to show that any property was standing in the name of Pw.1 for which she was harassed to transfer the same in the name of accused 4 No.1. Learned Trial Court has correctly opined the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner. 5. Secondly, it is submitted that prosecution during trial exhibited two documents i.e., the report of Pw.1 and F.I.R. But, after order of acquittal prosecution placed some more further documents before Appellate Court which are fabricated and prepared for the purpose of the instant case. He submits that the observation of the learned Appellate Court is illegal regarding the ownership of house property in the name of Pw.1. No documents has been placed before any Court rather the property was standing in the name of the person by name K.Sreeram. Thus, the allegations in the F.I.R. never been proved instead of which the learned Appellate Court has convicted the appellant. 6. Thirdly, it is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged beating by belt by the accused No.1 to Pw.1 has never been proved by any medical evidences. No wound certificate was placed on record by the prosecution, no doctors were examined. Hence, the observation of the Appellate Court is illegal and the conviction is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed on record, specific portion of the paper book wherein the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 was recorded. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has read out the specific portion where it has been alleged that accused No.1 used to beat Pw.1 with 5 police belt. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has read out the entire evidence of Pw.1 and submits that the factum of beating by belt by accused No.1 to Pw.1 was never disputed by placing a suggestion or denial by the defence side. Consequently, the said fact has been was remain uncontroverted and sufficiently proved. It is further contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the documents i.e., the letter dated 05.08.2002 and letter dated 28.08.2002 which were marked as Ex.P3 and P4 by the learned Appellate Court is the documents which were marked on recall of Pw.1. He submits that the documents were not illegally marked. Moreover, the Pw.1 was vividly cross examined by the defence during exhibiting such documents. Therefore, the existence of Pw.3 and Pw.4 cannot be questioned at this stage. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has sufficiently bring home the charge against accused No.1 regarding his torture upon Pw.1. Thus, there is no merit in the instant appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that the learned Appellate Court has not caused any error in passing the impugned judgment. He further submits the evidence of Pw.2 who is the father of Pw.1 has corroborated the case of the prosecution. Thus, there is no iota of doubt in the factum that accused No.1 used to harass and torture Pw.1 during her matrimonial life. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the entire paper book as well as the certified copy of the orders passed by the learned Courts below. It appears that at the time of passing the impugned judgment 6 the learned Appellate Court has opined regarding the ownership of a house site in the name of Pw.1, but it has been clarified by the learned Appellate Court that the said finding regarding ownership of the house was not conclusively determined by the Appellate Court. However, in the entire case there are three accused persons are charged, accused No.1 is the husband of Pw.1, accused No.2 is the father of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1. The learned Trial Court has acquitted all the accused persons wherein the learned Appellate Court has though confirmed the acquittal of 2nd and 3rd accused but has convicted accused No.1. The observation of the learned Appellate Court regarding convicting accused No.1 is at paragraph No.21 of the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court deciding the allegation against accused No.1 has placed reliance upon the documents which were marked as Ex.P3 to P7 as well as the documents Ex.D1 to D3. It is the opinion of the learned Trial Court that documents Ex.P3 and P4 which are letter addressed by Pw.1 to her father are sufficient to corroborate the case of the prosecution regarding alleged harassment and torture inflicted by accused No.1 upon Pw.1. Finally, the learned appellate Court is the opinion that accused No.1 being a Police Constable who harassed and beat Pw.1 by police belt is sufficient to constitute an offence of physical harassment and torture upon Pw.1. 10. It is heavily argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P3 and P4 are the concocted documents which are prepared only for the purpose of this appeal and only to punish the present appellant. 7 11. I have again thoroughly scrutinize the evidence of Pw.1 on recall dated 08.08.2011. It appears that during recall Pw.1 has placed those documents on record, she has been cross examined by the defence vividly; it has been suggested during cross examination that those documents are concocted and prepared but those were denied the fact for not bringing this documents and record in the later stage was also narrated during cross examination. Statement of Pw.1 on recall and credibility thereof was not sharpen during cross-examination, rather it being explained properly. 12. The learned Appellate Court after considering the examination of the Pw.1 on recall as well as the cross examination is the opinion that the documents Ex.P3 to P7 are required to be marked for the purpose of this case. Those documents marked in the appeal stage. Though the appellant has cross examined Pw.1 vividly but against the order of exhibiting such documents, no Revision or Appeal has been preferred. So, at this juncture, during this appeal stage the legality, validity and probative value of Ex.P3 to P7 cannot be call into question. Moreover, the accused has given sufficient opportunity to contradict those documents, thus there are no chance of causing prejudice to the accused. However, in my view, the learned Appellate Court has recorded conviction of accused No.1 on the basis of other evidences on record including the documentary evidence/Ex.P3 to P7. After scanning the entire evidence on record it appears to me there are sufficient allegations in the prosecution case regarding harassment and torture upon Pw.1 by accused No.1. So that, she may transfer a house site in the name of 8 accused No.1 but it also suggests that there are also allegation of physical torture. The physical torture was specifically narrated by Pw.1 regarding beating Pw.1 with police belt by accused No.1, the said factum was duly corroborated by Pw.2 in his evidence. There are no denial or suggestion on behalf of the defence of such physical harassment and torture. Moreover, Ex.P3 and P4 also suggests incidents of physical and mental torture which is corroboration of prosecution case in this case. Beating by belt upon a married lady, not only physically hurt her, but it creates more mental pain and agony which may not required to be proved through medical evidences. 13. After scanning the entire evidence on record also, after hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the learned Appellate Court has justifiable scan the evidences on record in respect of physical harassment meted out by accused No.1 over Pw.1. In my view, the order of appellate Court suffers no illegality regarding conviction of accused No.1 in this case. Thereby the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby disposed of. 14. Reasons thereby, conviction upheld. Appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court within three (03) weeks to serve out sentence. 15. After pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of sentence passed by the Appellate Court was suspended during the pendency of the instant appeal, the 9 same may be continued permitting the appellant for preferring appropriate application before the upper forum. 16. Considering the same, the order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal is hereby extended till a period of eight (08) weeks from today. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 07.03.2026. RMR 10 109 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1153/2011 07.03.2026 RMR