Back
2009 Supreme(AP) 807
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
CH. RAMAKOTESHWARA RAO
VS.
STATE OF A. P.
Crl. R. C. No. 1845 of 2009
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 2009
P.Prasad,
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 391, 161 (3) , 311 , 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Evidentiary value - Cross-examination - completing investigation – Appeal against conviction - Revision is directed against orders passed in Criminal by learned V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge additional Chief Judge - Petitioners herein who are filed a petition under Section 391 summon and for further cross-examination to elicit certain omissions and contradictions as additional evidence - Since said petition was dismissed petitioners herein filed present revision challenging said order - Brief facts of case are as follows - De facto complainant who is examined as is wife of father-in-law is mother-in-law is brother-in-law and is sister-in-law of lodged a complaint to police stating that she is working as Senior accountant in Government Central Press and that her marriage was performed with Al in and that at time of her parents gave dowry and towards other expenses and that after marriage she joined her husband - It is further alleged that Al started harassing her demanding additional dowry and that at that time he was unemployee - Courts should be careful while exercising powers under section - For limited purpose of asking only specific questions a witness may be recalled - But such power should be exercised carefully preferable before conclusion of trial - Further cross-examination should be limited to achieve purpose for which a witness is recalled I for limited questions which are permitted to be put to witness - In name of further cross-examination a witness should not be allowed to be cross-examined as done at first instance when witness is tendered for cross-examination - Power to recall a witness cannot be lightly exercised - Evidentiary value of subsequent version given after a considerable time is again a question to be determined by the Court - Since P. W. I was cross-examined in it appears that there is no justification in recalling said witness after a period of two years that too at appellate stage - Revision is accordingly dismissed
( 2 ) THE petitioners herein who are A2, A4 and A5 filed a petition under Section 391 cr. P. C to summon P. Ws. 1 and 8 for further cross-examination to elicit certain omissions and contradictions as additional evidence. Since the said petition was dismissed, the petitioners herein filed the present revision challenging the said order.
( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. The de facto complainant P. Madhavi who is examined as P. W. I is the wife of A1. A2 is the father-in-law, A3 is the mother-in-law, A4 is the brother-in-law and A5 is the sister-in-law of P. W. 1. PW. 1 lodged a complaint to the police stating that she is working as Senior accountant in Government Central Press, chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and that her marriage was performed with Al in the year 1993 and that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs. 2,00,000/- dowry and rs. 50,000/- towards other expenses and that after marriage she joined her husband. It is further alleged that Al started harassing her demanding additional dowry and that at that time he was unemployee. It is also her case that in 1994 she gave birth to a female child and that in 1995 her husband secured a job as Accounts Assistant in GAIL and joined in his job at Uttar Pradesh. It is also the case of P. W. I that Al never bothered to look after her and her daughter and that Al had not taken her with him. It is also alleged that al demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- dowry and that with great difficulty her parents arranged the said amount. It is also her case that subsequently she applied leave and joined her husband in U. P. It is also her case that even in U. P. her husband harassed her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry. It is also her case that her father expired and her elder sister and younger brother were unable to fulfill the demand of Al. It is also her case that in the year 2000 Al was transferred to Hyderabad and that he had obtained loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- as House Building Advance and constructed first floor on the existing building of his father at Miyapur. It is also the case of PW. l that Al left her in her parents house. It is also her case that on the instigation of his parents and sister, Al harassed her for additional dowry and due to financial constraints she could not fulfill his demand. Basing on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No. 854 of 2002 under sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC and under sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the representation of PW. 1, the case was transferred to CID for further investigation.
( 4 ) ON 01. 11. 2002 the parties entered into a compromise on some terms and conditions. It is her further case that even after the settlement, the terms of settlement were not implemented and that A1 again harassed her on one pretext or the other. It is also her case that on 09. 05. 2003 when she went to see her daughter, on the next day Al and his brother A4 break open the lock of the house and had taken away all the household articles, clothes and gold jewellery without informing her. Subsequently, Al filed a petition before Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce. The CID Police, after completing investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.
( 5 ) AFTER conclusion of the trial, Al, A2, A4 and A5 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 ipc and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry prohibition Act and Al was further convicted under Section 323 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2009 was filed. Then the petitioners filed Crl. M. P. No. 395 of 2009 to summon PWs. 1 and 8 for further cross-examination to elicit certain omissions and contradictions as additional evidence. Since the said petition h
