STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1170

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 14 S. C. R. 1170 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1697 OF 2008 OCTOBER 24, 2008 [C. K. THAKKER AND D. K. JAIN, JJ. ] ~- Penal Code, 1860 - s. 49BA - Cruelty - Meaning of - I>, Held: For purpose of s. 49BA, every harassment is not "cruelty" - Only when harassment is committed for coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under s. 498A - Crime against Women. Appeal - Criminal appeal - Interference by Appellate Court - Scope - Held: Where approach of the lower court in 'f. considering the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or conclusion recorded by the court is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is liable to be characterized as perverse ,. ,. and only then, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice, the appellate court is obliged to interfere. _.

__ FIR - Lodging of - Delay in - Held: It is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained - Importance of prompt lodging of FIR highlighted. ' ;- According to the prosecution, Respondent-husband (A-1) with assistance from his mother (A-2) and two sister-in-laws (A-3 and A-4) used to harass and beat his wife (PW1) and also pressurized her to bring additional Rs. 50,0001- though at the time of marriage, on the insistence of Respondent and his mother, the father of PW1 i. e. ,. "- ,... PW3 had already given one house, Rs. 60,0001- in cash, six Itolas of gold and household articles worth Rs. 50,000/- 'j) It was alleged that on 19th April, 1996 i. e. about three ··. ~ ~ years after marriage, Respondent and the three other accused forced PW1 to consume poison as a result of which she was admitted in a nursing home in an unconscious state.

PW1 was discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996 whereafter she went to stay with her parents and since then she is staying there. A complaint regarding the ~ said incident of forced poisoning was lodged by PW1 on y 22nd May, 1996 whereafter the prosecution machinery was set in motion. The Trial Court held that though no specific instances of harassment had come on record but the long course of conduct of Respondent showed that the allegations of harassment were not totally baseless and on that ground it ordered conviction of Respondent under s. 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The other three accused were however acquitted. The High Court, however, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, set aside the conviction of Respondent.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the State that the High Court took an unreasonable view in acquitting the Respondent, overlooking his conduct before and after the marriage; that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly proves that even before marriage, Respondent was insisting on transfer of house in his name; that even on the date of marriage demand for t money was made and though Respondent purchased lorry in the name of PW1, it was not by way of any love and affection but to extract an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and thus in light of the surrounding circumstances of the case a clear case for conviction under s. 498-A IPC had been made out against the . , Respondent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. S. 498-A 1. P. C. makes "cruelty" by husband or his relative a punishable offence. The word "cruelty" is defined in the Explanation appended to the said Section.

As per clause (b) of the Explanation, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of s. 498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand.. In other words, for the purpose of s. 498-A l. P. C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc. , that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under s. 498-A l. P. C. [Paras 10, 11] (1178-F; 1179-E, F, G) Harbans Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab1 (1962) Supp 1 SCR 104; Shri Gopal & Anr. v. Subhash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 174; State of MP v. Sanjay Rai (2004) 10 SCC 570; Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 583 and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) , 3 sec 755 - referred to. 2. 1.

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, which is otherwise available to an accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a Court of law, gets further re-inforced and strengthened by his acquittal. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the Trial Court, it should not be disturbed. [Para 13] (1180-B, C) ... 2. 2.

Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower ;court in considering the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been \ possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to the characterized as perverse, then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate court is obliged to interfere. In the present case, it is clear that the High Court has not committed any error in dealing with the evidence, which could be said to be 8 patently illegal or that the conclusion reached at by it is wholly untenable, warranting interference. [Paras 13, 15] (1180-0, E, F) 2. 3.

Though in the present case, it is true the Trial Court observed that there is some evidence on record to c' show that there was a demand for dowry even at the time of marriage but it is clear that the foundation for action against the respondent was laid when the complaint was lodged by the wife on 22nd May, 1996 and the prosecution machinery was set into motion. Again it is true that in the complaint there is a reference to the past conduct of the respondent and his family members but from the tenor of the complaint, it is clear that the allegation of harassment including the alleged poisoning incident is linked solely with her failure to get an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for the purchase of lorry. [Para 16] (1180-A, B; 1181-A, B) 2. 4.

The order of acquittal of the Respondent is well merited and does not call for interference, particularly when the First Information Report was lodged by PW1 more than one month after the alleged incident of fore- · ible poisoning. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. 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] (1182-0, E, F, G) i 2. 5. In the present case, First Information _Report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996.

After her discharge from the hospitaJ on 22nd April, 1996, PW1 went to her parents' house and resided there. In her testimony, PW1 has deposed that since no one from the family of the accused came to enquire about her welfare, she decided to lodge the First Information Report. No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. This circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it. unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. [Para 19] (1182-H; 1183-A, 8, C) Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Kamataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 - relied on.

CASE LAW REFERENCE (1962) Supp 1 SCR 104 referred to Para 9 (2004) 13 sec 114 referred to Para 9 {2004) 10 sec 570 referred to Para 9 (2004) 10 sec 583 referred to Para 9 (2001) 3 sec 755 referred to Para 9 (2001) 4 sec 415 relied on . Para 14 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1697 of 2008 '- From the final Judgment and Order dated 12. 4. 2006 of r the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 259 of 2003 June Choudhari, D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant. R. Venkataramani, P. Venkat Reddy, Aljo K. Joseph and ' Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D. K. JAIN, J. : 1. 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 'l. 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-lnspecfor (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-inlaw 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 1 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 l 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 mad. e 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, 1~96. ) 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 l. 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 l. 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 .... ,... MADHL)SUDHAN RAO [D. K. JAIN, J.

] \ items had been given as consideration for the marriage on demand of the accused though in the disguise of being gifts to the bridegroom. The Trial Court also inferred that accused A-1, who had purchased a lorry in the name of the complainantwife (PW-1) on 5th November, 1995 was harassing her to get Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for the purchase of lorry. Inter alia, observing that though no specific instances ofharassment had come on record but the long course of conduct of accused A-1 showed that the allegations of harassment were not totally baseless, the trial judge finally found accused A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A l. P. C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- with default stipulation. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was ordered to be paid to PW- 1. However, he did not find accused A-1 guilty under Section 307 l. P. C. and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge.

Accused A-2 to A-4 were not found guilty of both the charges framed against them and were acquitted accordingly. 6. Aggrieved, the respondent (A-1) challenged his conviction by preferring appeal before the High Court. The High Court, as stated above, on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, has set aside the conviction. Against this judgment, the State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Mrs. June Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently submitted that the High Court has taken an unreasonable view in acquitting the respondent, overlooking his conduct before and after the marriage. It was submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly proves that even before the marriage, the respondent (A-1) was insisting on transfer of the house in his name; even on the date ..

of marriage demand for money was made and though the lorry 1 was purchased in the name of the complainant, it was not by way of any love and affection but to extract more money from her parents. Learned counsel, thus, argued that in the light of these surrounding circumstances, a clear case for conviction .. , under Section 498-A l. P. C. had been made out against the I respondent. \ 9. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing ,__ on behalf of the respondent, while supporting the view taken by . -the High Court, submitted that the High Court having reappreciated and carefully analyzed the entire evidence before reaching the conclusion that no case for conviction of the .. respondent had been made out, this Court should be loathe to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

It rwas argued that apart from the fact that in the light of the evidence on record no illegality can be attributed to the conclusion recorded by the High Court, even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that where on an appraisal of the evidence, ~adduced in the case, the court below has taken a plausible view, • the appellate court should not interfere, particularly with an order ,,. _ of acquittal, even if different view can possibly be taken. In support - Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure "Y her or any person related, to her to meet such demand, would also constitute "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A l. P. C.

It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-Al. P. C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A l. P. C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc. , that it amounts to "cruelty" .... 1 - appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. B. B. B. Appeal dismissed. ,•