Back
2008(7) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh — Appellant
versus
M. Madhusudhan Rao — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1697 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3426 of 2007)
Decided on : 24-10-2008
(b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – There is no embargo on the appellate court to review, reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded – Yet, generally, the order of acquittal is not interfered with because the presumption of innocence, gets further reinforced and strengthened by his acquittal – It is also trite that if two views are possible and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed – Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower court in considering the evidence in the case is perverse, then the appellate court is obliged to interfere. (Para 13)
(2007)4 SCC 415; [1962] Supp 1 SCR 104; (2004) 13 SCC 174; (2004) 10 SCC 570; (2004) 10 SCC 583; (2007) 3 SCC 755 – Relied upon.
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Delay in lodging the First Information Report may result in embellishment and exaggeration – A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity – Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (Para 18)
Facts of the case :
1. Marriage between the de facto complainant (PW-1) and the respondent (A-1) was solemnized on 24th November, 1993.
2. On 22nd May, 1996, the complainant sent a report (Ex.P-1) to the Additional D.G.P., CID, Hyderabad, inter alia, alleging that at the time of her marriage with A-1, on the insistence of A-1 and his mother (A-2), her father gave her one house, Rs.60,000/- in cash, six tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-. Still after the marriage, her husband, working as Reserve Sub-Inspector (RSP) at Security Printing Press, was pressurising her to bring Rs.50,000/- more; he used to beat her up, scold, shout and threaten to kill her. It was also alleged that her mother-in-law (A-2), her husband’s brother Prabhakar and his wife (A-4), and the second sister-in-law of her husband (A-3) and her husband’s last brother also used to help her husband in beating and harassing her. 3. It was further alleged that one Mrs. Jalaja, working as Telephone Operator in the Reserve Bank of India, also used to threaten her by saying that her husband (A-1) had married her and he did not like to stay with her. Branding her husband to be a gambler, drunkard and moving around with anti social elements, it was also alleged that about six months back her husband and his family members had made the first attempt to eliminate her by forcibly pouring poison into her throat and when her condition became serious, they informed her parents that she had taken poison. However, then she had not made any complaint to the police against her husband.
4. But again on 19th April, 1996 at 11.00 a.m., her husband (A-1), his mother (A-2), his second brother’s wife (A-3) and her husband’s third brother’s wife (A-4) forced her to consume poison and as a result thereof she was admitted in the nursing home at about 2.30 p.m. in an unconscious state. The complaint regarding the incident on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996.
5. The trial judge finally found accused A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him.
6. The High Court on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, has set aside the conviction.
Finding of the Court :
High Court did not commit any error in directing acquittal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves allegations of cruelty and harassment within a marriage, with the prosecution claiming that the accused subjected the complainant to harassment with demands for unlawful property and attempted poisoning, while the defense challenged the reliability of the evidence and the delay in reporting the incidents (!) (!) (!) .
The legal definition of "cruelty" under the relevant penal provision includes conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, and harassment with the purpose of coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It is emphasized that not all harassment constitutes cruelty; rather, harassment must be for the purpose of coercion to meet unlawful demands to qualify as cruelty under the law (!) .
The appellate court has the authority to review and reappraise evidence, but generally, orders of acquittal are not disturbed unless the approach of the lower court is perverse or the conclusion is unreasonable or illegal (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the conviction, finding that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the elements of cruelty or harassment, especially considering the delayed lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) and the unreliability of the complainant’s testimony (!) (!) (!) .
The delay of over a month in filing the FIR, without satisfactory explanation, cast doubt on the veracity of the complaint and the prosecution's case, making it unsafe to rely solely on the evidence of the complainant (!) (!) .
The overall assessment of the evidence, including the credibility of the complainant and the conduct of the accused, supported the conclusion that the order of acquittal was appropriate and justified, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (!) .
The judgment underscores the importance of prompt reporting in cases of alleged offences and highlights that the appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or perversity (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused A-1 in Sessions Case No.129 of 1998 from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and acquitting him, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal.
3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows:
Marriage between the de facto complainant (PW-1) and the respondent (A-1) was solemnized on 24th November, 1993. On 22nd May, 1996, the complainant sent a report (Ex.P-1) to the Additional D.G.P., CID, Hyderabad, inter alia, alleging that at the time of her marriage with A-1, on the insistence of A-1 and his mother (A-2), her father gave her one house, Rs.60,000/- in cash, six tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-. Still after the marriage, her husband, working as Reserve Sub-Inspector (RSP) at Security Printing Press, was pressurising her to bring Rs.50,000/- more; he used to beat her up, scold, shout and threaten to kill her and on certain occasions he had also pressed her neck saying that he would kill her. It was also alleged that her mother-in-law (A-2), her husband’s brother Prabhakar and his wife (A-4), and the second sister-in-law of her husband (A-3) and her husband’s last brother also used to help her husband in beating and harassing her. It was further alleged that one Mrs. Jalaja, working as Telephone Operator in the Reserve Bank of India, also used to threaten her by saying that her husband (A-1) had married her and he did not like to stay with her. Branding her husband to be a gambler, drunkard and moving around with anti social elements, it was also alleged that about six months back her husband and his family members had made the first attempt to eliminate her by forcibly pouring poison into her throat and when her condition became serious, they informed her parents that she had taken poison. However, then she had not made any complaint to the police against her husband. But again on 19th April, 1996 at 11.00 a.m., her husband (A-1), his mother (A-2), his second brother’s wife (A-3) and her husband’s third brother’s wife (A-4) forced her to consume poison and as a result thereof she was admitted in the nursing home at about 2.30 p.m. in an unconscious state. When she was in a semi conscious state, the police took her statement but she did not know what statement the police had recorded. Her husband informed her parents about the incident only in the evening though she was admitted in the hospital at 2.30 p.m.; her parents came later and although they had lodged a complaint with the police but no action was taken against any person. After being discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996, she went to stay with her parents and since then she is staying with them but neither her husband nor his family members have come to see her. As noted supra, the complaint regarding the incident on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996.
4. The complaint was forwarded to the Senior Executive Officer, CID, Hyderabad and consequently on 7th August, 1996 a case was registered against accused A-1 to A-4 as also against the said Mrs. Jalaja under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, 307 I.P.C. After investigation, chargesheet was laid against accused A-1 to A-4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. No evidence was produced in defence. The learned Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, and relying on the evidence of the father of the complainant (PW-3), nephew of PW-3 (PW-4), a store clerk/colleague of PW-3 (PW-5), Security Inspector/colleague of PW-3 (PW-6), and a neighbour of PW-1 and PW-3 (PW-7), came to the conclusion that all the aforestated items had been given as consid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
