G. Chalapathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 20.12.2012 passed in Crl. MP No. 168 of 2012 in SC No. 136 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed u/s 319 Cr. P.C. The petitioner is the father of deceased-Parvathi. She was a student of 10th class and was aged about 16 years on the date of the incident. One Raghavendra proposed to marry the deceased-Parvathi. But, the deceased-Parvathi was not willing for the marriage and she was inclined to continue her studies. On 7.7.2009 when the complainant was not in the house, the deceased-Parvathi was taken by A1 B. Marikuripalle Chittamma. Subsequently, her whereabouts were not known. The complainant presented a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station, Anantapur District, suspecting the involvement of A1-Chittemma, A2-Boya Dasari Anand and four other persons viz., Raghavendra, Raghu, Lakshmi Narayana and Govindu. Subsequently, the dead body of Parvathi came to be traced. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against A1-B. Marikuripalli Chittemma and A2 - Boya Dasari Anand. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penugonda took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C., and committed the case to Sessions Division, Anantapur District. The learned Sessions Judge, took the case on file and made over the same to Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant as PW 1 and moved Crl. MP No. 168 of 2012 u/s 319 Cr. P.C., to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not made out any material to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2 and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition filed u/s 319 Cr. P.C., by order dated 20.12.2012. Hence, this revision by the complainant.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State.

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that PW1 evidence is sufficient to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh and Another Vs. State of Haryana, , Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand, Ram Singh and Others Vs. Ram Niwas and Another, and Sarojben Ashwin kumar Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 1 SCC (Crl) 867 and judgment of this Court in Gurram Bhaskar Vs. State of AP. and Gangala Sridhar, = Gurram Bhaskar Vs. State of AP. and Gangala Sridhar,

I have gone through the evidence of PW1, copy of which finds place at Page No. 8 of the material papers. He does not claim to be the witness either to the kidnap of Parvathi or to the assault on Parvathi. Whatever he stated before the Court is only hearsay evidence. Indeed a case u/s 366 IPC, came to be registered on the petitioner-complainant Had he witnessed the assault on the deceased-Parvathi, a case would have been registered u/s 302 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of PW1, who is the de facto complainant, observed as hereunder.

PW1 Chalapathi in his evidence categorically deposed that on that day he was not at his house and that Al took his daughter (deceased) from his house between 11-30 a.m., and 12-00 Noon saying that he would perform the marriage of his daughter with one Raghavendra and that, instead performing marriage with Raghavendra, Al arranged to marry his daughter with one Lakshminarayana, who is the brother-in-law of Al against the will and desire of his daughter and that A1 and A2 Lakshminarayana, brother-in-law of A1, another Lakshminarayana, S/o. Narasimhappa and Adilakshmamma W/o. Narasimhappa (proposed A3 to A5) were present at Sagarala near Gorantla to perform his daughter''s marriage with Lakshminarayana, brother-in-law of A1 and that his daughter did not agree for the marriage and therefore, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the proposed accused Nos. 3 to 5 strangulated the neck of his daughter and thrown her into a well and he then gave Ex. P1 to police for missing of his daughter.

The very registration of the crime u/s 366 IPC is indicative of PW1 (de facto complainant) not witnessing the incident. There is no material whatsoever placed on record before the trial Court to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the order impugned in revision in exercise of powers under Sections 379 and 401 Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.