The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, emphasizing the need for continuous practice of mental or physical torture, the grave nature of allegations, and the distinction between cruelty under Section 498A and Section 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.1692 of 2001 and 711 of 2002 whereby the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry dated 31.10.2001 in S.C. No.1 of 2000 whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that a private complaint was filed by Undavilli Veerayamma, PW.1/ complainant against the appellant Undavalli Narayan Rao - the husband, and Undavalli Veerayamma @ Vijjamma - the mother-in-law of the deceased, Malathi Devi. Both of them are alleged to have harassed the deceased for more dowry and due to the strained relationship between the deceased and appellant, an agreement (Khararunama) was executed, restraining the appellant from dealing with or alienating the properties mentioned in the said “Khararunama”. Subsequent to the execution of said “Khararunama” the deceased restored marital relations with the appellant and they lived together for nine years. During this period the deceased persistently complained about the behaviour of the appellant and his mother, to her mother Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1 and other relatives and the continuation of harassment at the hands of the appellant and his mother.

3. It is alleged that the appellant killed his wife on 5.6.1999 and stage managed a hanging to show that the deceased committed suicide. Her dead body was hurriedly cremated with the assistance of co-accused Manyan Narayan Rao, Valluri Gangadhar Rao and Chillikuri Rajasekhara Rao without informing the parents of the deceased who were away at Hyderabad and it was also alleged that the close relatives of the deceased objected to the cremation but despite their objections, the deceased was cremated.

4. After arrival of the parents of the deceased, a dispute arose and when the mother of the deceased Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1 was about to file a criminal case against the accused persons, a mediator attempted conciliation between the parties, as a result whereof some land was parted with through a registered document by the appellant in favour of the minor child of the deceased as a consideration for not filing a criminal case. However, subsequently the appellant refused to allow the minor child to be with her maternal grand parents. Thereafter Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1 approached the Police Station for registering an FIR and since there was abnormal delay, the police refused to register the case as a result of which she filed a private complaint, on the basis of which P.R.C.27/99 before the Additional J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram came to the Court for trial.

5. After committal, the case was proceeded with. Charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the appellant and his mother, and under Section 201 IPC against all the five accused were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial, the Public Prosecutor prayed for framing of an additional charge under Section 498A IPC, which was accordingly framed against the appellant and his mother.

6. To prove the prosecution case against the accused, 11 witnesses were examined. Upon a full scale trial, the trial court came to the conclusion that the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant, his mother or any other co-accused were not made out. The appellant alone was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC, and was awarded a sentence of R.I. for two years vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2001. The trial against co-accused Manyan Narayan Rao abated due to his death during the pendency of the case.

7. Aggrieved by the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 4