D.A.Deepa vs State Of A.P. 3 Others

The defacto complainant filed the present appeal against Respondents 2 to 4/ Accused 1 to 3, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Respondents 3 and 4 under Section 498-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 24.06.2008 in CC No.62 of 2002 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad (for short, the ‘Magistrate’).

The appeal is of the year 2008 and the complaint is of the year 24.01.2000 registered by CID, Hyderabad. Though the appeal was listed on earlier occasions, none appeared for the appellant as seen from the proceeding sheet, as such the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is heard and appeal is being disposed off.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor firstly submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable for the reason of the judgment being delivered XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the appeal lies to the Sessions Court under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C was inserted by the Act No.5 of 2009 with effect from 31.12.2009 as such the amendment is not applicable. This appeal which is pending for the past 14 years is disposed off on merits.

As seen from the judgment, the 2nd respondent/A1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The respondents 2 to 4/A1 to A3 were found not guilty for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the 3rd and 4th respondents/A2 and A3 are also not found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

In the said case, since the appeal against conviction under Section 498-A of IPC lies to the Sessions Court, the 2nd respondent/A1 must have filed appeal before the Sessions Court. In the said circumstances, any grievance against the 2nd appellant, should have been made before the concerned Sessions Court and not before this Court. Accordingly, the appeal against 2nd appellant/A1 is dismissed.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein who is the defacto complainant married 2nd respondent/A1 on 25.04.1999 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.80,000/-, 15 tulas of gold, Yamaha motor cycle and further worth Rs.34,000/- to 2nd respondent/A1. Further, the marriage expenses spent was around Rs.4.00 lakhs. For the reason of demand of additional dowry, Respondents 2 to 4 treated the defacto complainant with cruelty. The defacto complainant filed OP No.88 of 2001 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against 2nd respondent/A1, who in turn filed counter seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said OP for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed granting divorce and this Court by order dated 08.04.2006 allowed restitution of conjugal rights and set aside the decree of divorce.

As far as the respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3 are concerned, learned Magistrate has found that all allegations specifically were made against A1 only regarding additional dowry which was given at the time of marriage. P.W.1 has made vague and bald allegations against respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3, for which reason, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3, who are parents of 2nd respondent/A1.

As seen from the conduct of the appellant, she wanted to live with her husband as such fought the conjugal rights petition for six years. It is not normal if the wife was treated with cruelty by husband and in-laws. The appeal now being heard is to decide whether any ground is made out against respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3 or not. As the learned Magistrate has found that there are only bald and vague allegations against these appellants, it cannot be said that any case is made out for reversing the judgment of acquittal.

In cases of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons, the order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed against respondents 3 and 4/A2 and A3. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.