The importance of clear and corroborative evidence, consistency, and coherence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari at Eluru, whereby, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the 1st respondent herein in C.C.No.52 of 2008 dated 19.01.2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise Court), Eluru, was set aside and the 1st respondent was acquitted in the said case.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the marriage of the de-facto complainant (PW.1) was performed with A.1 on 27.08.2005 as per the Hindu Rights and Customs. At the time of the marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam. Parents of the de-facto complainant also presented house hold articles worth Rs.20,000/-, besides one sovereign of gold ring and wrist watch. After the marriage, she joined A.1 for conjugal life at Vijayawada. Ever since the marriage, all the accused started harassing and torturing her mentally and physically with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. At one stage, unable to bear the harassment in the hands of the accused, she forced to commit suicide by consuming some harpic phenyl. Further, it is alleged that A.1 developed illegal intimacy with another girl and neglected the de-facto complainant by leaving her fate and he did not choose to feed her properly. A.1 left the de-facto complainant in her parents’ house and demanded her to come back with additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Then she gave a report at Eluru Women PS on 19.12.2007 against her husband (A.1) and her in-laws (A.2 & A.3), basing on which Cr.No.61 of 2007 under Section 498-A IPC. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against all the accused. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine amount of Rs.1000/-. The trial Court found A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, acquitted them.

3. The 1st respondent, who felt aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, preferred appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011 to the Court of V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Eluru. The appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2012 and the judgment of conviction in C.C.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise Court), Eluru, was set aside and the 1st respondent was acquitted of the said offence.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the de-facto complainant has preferred the present appeal questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.

5. Heard Sri I.V.N. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K. Sandeep, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State.

6. It is well settled law that this Court will lightly interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Only when it is shown, that the judgment of acquittal was passed completely ignoring the evidence on record or when it is shown that the findings recorded for acquitting the accused are perverse, this Court usually interferes with the judgment of acquittal.

7. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the finding of acquittal on proper appreciation of evidence on record and after subjecting the same to scrutiny, concluded that the trial Court certainly lost sight of the crucial facts and failed to note material improvements, adding of material facts and hypothetical stories by the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that since the testimonies of prosecution witnesses show any amount of inconsistencies, the lower Court ought to have exte