Honble ANAND, J. – The appellant alongwith his brother was tried for offences under Section 420 IPC read with Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court convicted them both and sentenced them to undergo 9 month R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for four months for the offence under Sec.429 IPC and to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). In an appeal against their sentence and conviction, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out and set aside their conviction and sentence for the said offence while confirming their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Both the convicts unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court .

(2) This appeal by special leave filed by the appellant is directed against the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 16.10.1990 dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the convicts. The brother of the appellant filed SLP (Crl.) 2336 of 1990 against the revisional order of the High Court but that S.L.P. was dismissed by this Court on 15.2.1991.

(3) The prosecution case is as follows:

The appellant (hereinafter the first accused ) is the younger brother of the petitioner (hereinafter the second accused) in SLP (Crl.) No. 2336 of 1990, which as already noticed was dismissed on 15.2.1991 by this court. The first accused had been selected for Indian Police Service and was undergoing training in theyear 1985 and on completion of the training was posted as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in Jammu & Kashmir Police force. His brother, the second accused, was at the relevant time working with the Osmania University at Hyderabad. PW1, Shri G. Narayana Reddy, the complainant, was practising as a law yer at Hyderebad P.W. 1 has four daughters. Ms. Vani is the eldest among the four daughters. She was working as a Cashier with the State Bank of India at Hyderabad. PW1 was looking for marriage alliance for his daughter Ms. Vani. A proposal to get Ms. Vani married to the first accused was made by PW2, Shri Lakshma Reddy,a common friend of the appellant and PW1. Lateron PW2 introduced the second accused to PW1, who later on also met Ms. Vani and approved of the match. After some time, the first accused also met Ms. Vani at the Institute of Public Enterprises and both of them approved each other for marriage. It is alleged that on 6.5.1985, the second accused accompanied by PW2 and some others went to the house of PW1 to pursue the talks regarding marriage. There were some talks regarding giving of dowry and the terms were finally agreed between them on 7. 5. 1985 at the house of the second accused. The first accused was not present either on 6.5.1985 or on 7.5.1985. It is alleged that as per the terms settled between the parties, PW1 agreed to give to his daughter(1) house at Hyderabad (2) jewels, cash and clothes worth about at rupees one lakh and (3) a sum of Rs. 50,000 in cash for Purchase of a Car.The date of marriage, however, was to be fixed after consulting the first accused. PW1, however, later on insisted on having an engagement ceremony and contracted the first accused but the first accused persuaded PW1 not to rush through the same as it was not possible for him to intimate the date to his friends at a short notice. The first accused came to Hyderabad from Dehradun, where he was undergoing training, on 6.8.1985. and stayed at Hyderabad till 15.8.1985. The first accused attended the birthday party of the youngest sister of Ms. Vani on 15.8.1985 and later on sent a bank draft of Rs. 100/- as the birthday gift for her to Ms. Vani. In the letter Ex. P1 which accompanied the bank draft, some reference was allegedly made reading the settlement of dowry. It is alleged that the first accused later on wrote several letters in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document