Fair
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE : KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: SMT. M.G. PRIYADARSHINI,
Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
Wednesday, the 12 thday of January, 2022
Crl. Appeal No.86 of 2019
From what court the :I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, appeal is preferredHuzurabad.
Number of the case in : C.C. No.556 of 2009 that court
Number of the appeal:Crl. Appeal No.86 of 2019
Name and description of :Edla Thirupathi Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Appellantaged 34 yrs., Caste : Reddy, R/o Penchikalpet Village, now at Damera Village, Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District.
Name and description of : State through Sub Inspector of Police, respondentElkathurthy, represented by Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Karimnagar.
The sentence and law: The accused was found guilty for the under which it wasoffences punishable under Sec.498-A of imposed in the lowerIPC., and he was convicted under courtSec.248 (2) Cr. PC., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fne of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Whether confrmed, : The appeal is allowed and the revised and if modifedjudgment of conviction and sentence, dt.17.04.2019 passed by the learned I- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1stClass, Huzurabad in C.C. No.556 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted under Sec.386 (b) (i) of Cr. PC. The fne amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him after revision time is over.
This Criminal Appeal has been fnally heard on 03.01.2022 in the presence of Sri V. Ram Rathnakar Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and on hearing both sides and having stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-
-: J U D G M E N T :-
Fair2
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
This Criminal Appeal is fled by the appellant assailing the judgment, dt.17.04.2019 in C.C. No.556 of 2009 passed by the learned I-
Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fne of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Note : The parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
2.The brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint fled under Sec.200 Cr. PC., by the defacto-complainant, are that she is legally wedded wife of A1 and their marriage was performed about 14-years ago at her parental house at Penchikalpet Village of Elkathurthy Mandal and
A1 was brought to her house as illatum son-in-law. At the time of marriage, on the demanded made by her husband/A1 and her father-in- law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and co-brother, i.e. A2 to
A6, her parents gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and promised to give Ac.1-20 gts., of agricultural land later. The defacto- complainant and A1 lived happily for a period of three years at her parents’ house and blessed with a daughter by name Supriya, who is now aged 12 years. About fve years back, her parents purchased agricultural land measuring Ac.1-18 gts., in Sy. No.26/A and obtained a sale deed in her name and in the name of her husband/A1 jointly. Thereafter, A1 addicted to cheap liquor and gambling and did not attend to agricultural operations. A1 used to demand her to bring money from her parents to meet his necessities and when she questioned him about his behavior,
A1 used to harass her mentally and physically and beat her. On the demand made by A1, she separated from her parents and lived separately for two months in the house of one Malla Reddy and as A1 left her company and did not return for 15-days, she shifted to her parents’
Fair3
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
house. Having vexed with the attitude of A1, about fve years back, she got convened a panchayath before the elders, namely, Thogaru Ailaiah,
Dugyani Chandramouli and Edavelli Ashok Reddy who advised A1 not to harass her, but in vain. Then, A1 left the society of the defacto- complainant but was visiting her parents’ house twice or thrice in a year during night hours under intoxicated condition and used to harass her and her parents demanding additional dowry and for allowing him to alienate the land. When his illegal demands were not met, A1 used to threaten the defacto-complainant that he would commit suicide by consuming poison and about seven years ago, he made such an attempt to commit suicide by consuming Cyper Methrin in her absence, but on noticing the same she along with her parents took him to MGM Hospital and saved his life. Having vexed with the attitude of A1, she approached the concerned police on 13.06.2009, but they did not take any action and colluded with A1 due to political infuence. In the second week of June, 2009, when she informed about the attitude of A1, all the accused threatened to kill her and demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and to alienate the land. As the concerned police failed to take any action against the accused, she fled the complaint before the Court.
ii) The learned Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad, referred the said complaint to SHO of P.S., Elkathurthy for investigation and report. Accordingly, ASI of Police, Elkathurthy (LW.17) registered a case in Cr. No.130/2009 under Sec.498-A, 384, 504, 506 of IPC., and
Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the S.I. of Police, Elkathurthy (LW.18) examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested A1 and remanded him to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against A1 alone for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of
IPC., as the involvement of A2 to A6 in the offence was not established.
Fair4
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
3.The learned Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad, took the case on fle against A1 for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of
IPC., and numbered the same as C.C.556 of 2009.
4.On appearance of A1, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr. PC. He was examined under
Sec.239 Cr. PC., and a charge under Sec.498-A of IPC., was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.In order to establish the guilt of A1, the prosecution has cited as many as (18) witnesses and examined (10) witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6. Ex.P.1 is the complaint fled by PW.1
before the Court, Exs.P-2 to P-5 are Sec.161 Cr. PC. Statements of PW.5,
PW.6, PW.7 and PW.9 and Ex.P-6 is the F.I.R. On behalf of A1, no witness was examined but the relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr. PC. Statement of
PW.4 was marked as Ex.D-1.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence before the trial
Court, A1 was examined under Sec.313 Cr. PC., explaining to him, the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
7.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad, found A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC., convicted him and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal with the following grounds :-
Fair5
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
“The judgment under appeal is bad in law and perverse to the facts of the case and also against the rule of evidence.
PW.1 has accepted that the appellant is illatum son-in-law to her parents and the Investigation Ofcer also admitted that there is no specifc overt act is attributed to the accused in regard to the alleged harassment. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 has no credibility as they have made vague allegations of harassment. The trial Court discarded the improvements made by PWs.1 to 4 during their chief- examination and cross-examination. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
8.Heard both sides and perused the record.
9.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the judgment, dt.17.04.2019 passed by the I-
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad in C.C.
No.556 of 2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
Sec.498-A of IPC., is sustainable under law or liable to be set aside ?
10.POINT:
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence, has convicted the appellant/A1 and though there is no corroboration between the evidence of witnesses and there a r e many discrepancies in the prosecution case, the trial Court has discarded the same. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ingredients of
Sec.498-A of IPC., are not attracted as PW.1 and the appellant are living separately since last several years prior to fling of complaint by PW.1 and therefore, prayed to set aside the
Fair6
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and to acquit the appellant/A1.
i) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial Court after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, which is corroborating with each other, came to a proper conclusion and convicted the appellant and thus there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction passed by the trial
Court against the appellant/A1 and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11.In order to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10. PW.1 is the complainant-cum- victim, PW.2 is the father, PW.3 is the mother, PWs.4 to 6 and PW.9 are the relatives of PW.1. PW.7 and PW.8 are panchayath elders and PW.10 is the Investigation Ofcer.
12.Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW.5, PW.6,
PW.7 and PW.9 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and there remains only the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, PW.8 and PW.10 and therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully.
13.The evidence of PW.1 is that in the year 1995, her marriage was performed with the accused and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry to her parents-in-law apart from household articles on their demand. Her parents-in-law also demanded to give Ac.1-18 gts., of land but her parents expressed their inability.
After the marriage, they lived happily for three years and blessed with a baby girl in the year 1997, who is now studying graduation. After three years of marriage, the accused addicted to bad vices like consuming alcohol, playing cards etc. and to meet the expenses of his vices, he
Fair7
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
started demanding money and snatching money from the house and when she failed to give money, he used to beat her. The accused along with his parents and family members harassed her to bring money from her parents and as they tried to kill her, she went to her parents’ house along with her daughter. Her parents got conducted panchayath wherein the accused gave assurance that he would take care of them, but he did not change his attitude and continued to harass her. After the marriage, she stayed at her in-laws’ house for around three to four years and thereafter went to her parents’ house and at present also, she is staying at her parents’ house along with her daughter. In the year 2007, the accused came to her parents’ house and threatened that he would kill them if her parents failed to give money to him and on seeing this, her daughter got panic. Then, she went to police station and gave report, but the police refused to register the case and as such, she approached the court and fled the complaint as in Ex.P-1. Before fling of
Ex.P-1, on one day, when the accused came to her parents’ house by quarrelling with co-players and consumed pesticide in front of her parents’ house and created nuisance, the neighbours shifted him to hospital, and that she did not witness the said incident but came to know through neighbours and provided medical treatment to him. After his discharge from the hospital, she went to her in-laws’ house along with the accused and stayed there for two to three days and thereafter returned to her parents’ house. After six months of the said incident, the accused came to her parents’ house along with one elder person and promised us that he would change his attitude and take care of her and her baby but she stated that she would stay at her parents’ house only for which he agreed and stayed along with her at her parents’ house.
After two to three months, the accused left the house by taking
Rs.2,000/- and continued the same harassment for money.
i) PW.1 further added that after seven years of her marriage, her father purchased Ac.1-18 gts., of land on her name to fulfll the
Fair8
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
demand of the accused and his family members and thereafter, the accused started new demand to sell that land and to give money to him.
The accused committed theft of Rs.50,000/- cash belonging to her father from their house and left the house. This is the second case fled by her under Sec.498-A of IPC., and a similar case was registered against the accused and the same was ended in compromise. As the accused did not change his behavior, she gave Ex.P-1 complaint subsequently, and that she has also fled DVC at Karimnagar Court against the accused. On 10.01.2018, the accused came to her parents’ house and threatened to kill them.
ii) In the cross-examination, PW.1 stated that she cannot say the dates on which accused demanded and harassed her for dowry, and that the accused used to demand her to bring money from her parents but he never demanded in anyone’s presence. She admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P-1 about the frst case fled by her. Though she denied the suggestion that accused is an illatum son-in-law and she has mentioned the same in Ex.P-1, she admitted that her father has no sons.
14.PW.2 corroborated the evidence of PW.1 and further stated that the accused used to pick up quarrel with them without any reason and he never felt any responsibility towards his wife and daughter, and that accused also beat her for silly reasons.
i) In the cross-examination, PW.2 stated that she cannot say when and where accused beat PW.1 before fling this case. She added that due to disputes PW.1 brought accused to their house but he is not illatum son-in-law. Though she denied the suggestion that with his savings accused purchased land and got it registered jointly, she stated that at present PW.1 is cultivating Ac.1-18 gts., of land. She pleaded ignorance when and where panchayaths were held.
Fair9
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
15.The evidence of PW.3 is that about 20-years back, they performed marriage of PW.1 with the accused and gave Rs.2,00,000/- cash to him apart from household articles and they lived happily for two to three years at Damera. After the birth of daughter, accused used to scold PW.1 in flthy language and beat her for additional dowry and as such, she came back to her house with the baby. As the accused spent
Rs.2,00,000/- dowry amount, at the advise of elders, instead of giving money they purchased Ac.1-18 gts., of land and got registered jointly in the name of accused and PW.1. After some time, the accused started harassing PW.1 with a demand to sell the said land and around two to three times panchayaths were conducted. PW.1 and the accused lived in a rented house for six months, but the accused did not change his attitude and he took away Rs.50,000/- cash from her house and went away for six months. After his return, when PW.1 questioned him as to why he took away sale proceeds of cotton, i.e. Rs.50,000/-, the accused scolded and beat her and as such, she came back to her house. Again, the accused came back in drunken condition and beat PW.1 and PW.2 and damaged the doors and as a result, PW.1 and PW.2 sustained injuries and thereafter, PW.1 gave complaint to police. On seeing the said incident, her granddaughter panicked and stopped going to School for one year with a fear that the accused would kill PW.1. They provided treatment to her granddaughter and now she became normal and is going to College.
i) In the cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that Ac.1-18 gts., of land is in possession of PW.1, but denied the suggestion that PW.1 and her daughter are living on the income being received from the said land.
16.PW.4 deposed that after their marriage, PW.1 and the accused lived happily for two to three years and blessed with a daughter.
Later, the accused addicted to bad vices like consuming alcohol, playing cards and as such, disputes cropped up in their family. The accused
Fair10
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
used to beat PW.1 and PW.2 demanding money and as PWs.1 and 2 refused to give money, the accused consumed poison and they took him to hospital and provided treatment. PW.4 further deposed that panchayaths were held in their village and elders admonished the accused, but he did not hear their words and quarreled with PWs.1 and 2 in the midnight and beat PW.1 at the house of PW.2. Then, PW.1 approached the police and gave complaint, and that the police admonished the accused and left him, but the accused did not change.
i) In the cross-examination, PW.4 stated that he did not state to the police that the accused is illatum son-in-law, and that he did not state to the police that before marriage, on enquiry, accused agreed to marry PW.1 as illatum son-in-law and the said contradiction is marked as
Ex.D-1.
17.PW.5 deposed that PW.1 is his daughter-in-law by relation, but he does not know anything about the disputes of PW.1and the accused. In the cross-examination, he denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P-2.
18.PW.6 and PW.7 deposed that they know PW.1 and the accused and they attended their marriage. They further deposed that they know that the accused is illatum son-in-law, but they do not know about the disputes of accused and PW.1, and that they did not attend any panchayath held by elders to pacify the disputes of PW.1 and the accused. In the cross-examination, they denied having stated to the police as in Exs.P-3 and P-4.
19.The evidence of PW.8 is that he knows PW.1 and the accused and he attended their marriage. He knows that the accused is illatum son-in-law and he used to stay at the house of PW.2 and PW.3 at
Penchikalpet. After the marriage, they lived happily for four to fve years
Fair11
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
and were blessed with a daughter. Thereafter, two to three times panchayaths were held and he attended one panchayath. The disputes cropped up between both parties regarding money, but he cannot say the exact reason for their disputes. As their disputes not pacifed in panchayath, PW.1 fled a case against the accused.
i) In the cross-examination, PW.8 stated that in one panchayath which he attended, PW.1 asked the accused to give his earnings for which accused stated that he purchased T.V. and other articles and as such, he has no money. He further stated that since the accused lived with PWs.2 and 3, with his earnings and joint family earnings he purchased Ac.1-19 gts., of land and got registered jointly, but he cannot say that as PW.1 pressurized the accused, he got registered the said land jointly. He admitted that at present PW.1 is cultivating the said land as the accused is not residing in the village. He further admitted that in the panchayath, PW.1 did not inform them that the accused demanding dowry and beating her in drunken state.
20.PW.9 deposed that about seven years ago, he worked as Upa
Sarpanch of Penchikalpet village and on one occasion, he conducted panchayath between both parties to resolve their disputes. He further deposed that PW.2 has two daughters and accused is illatum son-in-law, and that the accused and PW.1 lived happily for some time and were blessed with a daughter. He further deposed that the accused and PW.1 jointly purchased 1 to 1 ½ acres of land and thereafter disputes cropped up between them due to their personal reasons and they tried to pacify their issues but failed. He further deposed that around three to four times panchayaths were conducted at their village but their disputes were not resolved. In the cross-examination, he denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P-5.
Fair12
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
21.PW.10 is the Investigation Ofcer and he deposed about receipt of complaint from the Court, registering of F.I.R. as in Ex.P-6, recording the statements of witnesses and fling of charge sheet. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not receive any complaint from
PW.1 prior to Ex.P-1 regarding the material issues with the accused.
22. Ex.P-1 is the complaint fled by PW.1 before the
Court on 29.06.2009. A perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that the parents of PW.1, i.e. PWs.2 and 3, took the accused as their illatum son-in-law. But, PW.1 as well as PWs.2 and 3 deviated from the contents of Ex.P-1 and denied in their evidence that the accused is their illatum son-in-law. On the other hand, PWs.6 to 9 who acted as elders in the panchayath, deposed that the accused is illatum son-in-law of
PWs.2 and 3. PW.1 deposed that after the marriage, she stayed for around three to four years at her in-laws’ house and at present she is staying at her parents’ house along with her daughter. In Ex.P-1, PW.1 further stated that about fve years ago, her parents (PWs.2 and 3) placed the matter
before elders (PWs.6 to 9) and others, but the efforts put in by
her and her parents had become futile as the accused left the conjugal society of PW.1 but was coming under intoxicated condition during night time twice or thrice in a year. But,
PWs.1 to 4 did not state in their evidence that the accused left the society of PW.1 about fve years back prior to fling Ex.P-1.
i) PW.1 further stated in Ex.P-1 that about fve years ago, at the insistence of accused No.1 to 6, her father purchased land measuring Ac.1-18 gts., in her name and in the name of the accused jointly. On the contrary, PW.1 in her evidence stated that seven years of her marriage, her father
Fair13
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
purchased Ac.1-18 gts., of land on her name to fulfll the demand of accused and his family members and thereafter, the accused started new demand to sell the land and to give money to him. It is further stated by PW.1 in Ex.P-1 that when his illegal demands were not met, the accused used to threaten to commit suicide and about seven years ago, he attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison, she along with her parents took him to MGM Hospital and rescued him from danger, but in her evidence, PW.1 stated that before fling Ex.P-1, on one day, accused came to her parents’ house by quarrelling with co-players and consumed pesticide poison in front of her parents’ house and created nuisance and the neighbours shifted him to the hospital, and that she did not witness the said incident. Furthermore, the evidence of
PWs.2 to 4 is silent as to the alleged suicide attempt made by the accused.
ii) Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not consistent with the contents of Ex.P-1 and there are several omissions and contradictions in their evidence with regard to the alleged harassment made by the accused to alienate the said land. Except stating that the accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally, none of the witnesses stated about the nature of alleged harassment or the specifc incidents of harassment caused by the accused, to know whether it falls under the meaning of cruelty, as defned under Sec.498-A of
IPC. As already stated supra, PW.2 is the father, PW.3 is the mother and PW.4 is the uncle of PW.1 and as such, they are interested witnesses. No independent witnesses such as neighbours of the accused are examined to speak about any of the incidents wherein the accused harassed PW.1 to bring
Fair14
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
additional dowry from her parents or forced her to alienate
the land jointly purchased in his name and in the name of
PW.1. Further more, when it was suggested to PW.3 that they are not allowing their granddaughter to meet her father as the accused never beat her and never came in drunken condition, she denied the same. However, the daughter of
PW.1 and the accused is a college going girl and she is the proper person to speak about the disputes between her parents, but she is neither cited nor examined as a witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
23.Here, it is pertinent to note, as stated by PW.1 in her chief-examination, that this the second case fled by her under Sec.498-A IPC., and a similar case registered against the accused earlier was ended in compromise, and that she has also fled DVC at Karimnagar Court against the accused.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants fled a memo enclosing therewith certifed copies of compromise en- tered into between PW.1 and the accused in DVC No.20 of 2011 on the fle of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad. In the mutual set- tlement deed, dt.16.10.2019 entered into between PW.1 and the ac- cused, inter alia, it is stated that the disputes arose in between the frst party and the second party on their matrimonial matters and both par- ties are not interested to lead their life together and both parties are residing separately since more than ten years and decided to obtain di- vorce decree through Court and in the terms and conditions of compro- mise, PW.1 agreed to withdraw the criminal appeal pending against the accused.
Fair15
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
24.In Ex.P-1, PW.1 stated that fve years ago, the elders suggested the accused not to harass her and her parents are treating him as illatum son-in-law, but the efforts put in by her and her parents had become futile as the accused left the conjugal society of PW.1 but was visiting her twice of thrice in a year under intoxicated condition and harassing her and her parents demanding additional dowry. As already stated supra, there is no independent evidence to prove the alleged harassment made by the accused either demanding for
additional dowry or for allowing him to alienate the land. From the
above contents of Ex.P-1, it is evident that the accused and PW.1 are residing separately for fve years prior to fling of complaint by her
before the Court.
25.Here, it may be pointed out that though the learned Counsel
for the appellant/A1 assailed the impugned judgment of conviction by
raising several grounds, he did not urge either in the trial Court or in this
Appellate Court regarding the bar under Sec.468 of Cr. PC., for taking cognizance of the complaint, especially in the light of the averments made in Ex.P-1 itself. However, the same does not preclude this Court from considering whether the complaint under Ex.P-1 is not bar under
Sec.468 of Cr. PC. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider frst whether the complaint under Ex.P-1 is not barred under Sec.468 of Cr. PC. or not.
26.Sec.468 of Cr. PC., reads as under :-
Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation :- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specifed in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fne only;
Fair16
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is Punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in rela- tion to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more se- vere punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punish- ment.
27.The offence alleged against the appellant/A1 being one under
Sec.498-A of IPC., which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to pay fne.
28.As per Sec.368 (1) (c) of Cr. PC., no Court shall take cog- nizance of offence of the category specifed in sub-section 2 after expiry of period of limitation. The period of limitation shall be three years, if the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years. So much so, the period of limitation in so far as the case on hand is concerned, is three (3) years.
29.According to Section 469 Cr.PC., the period of limitation in re- lation to an offence shall commence from the date of offence. Sec.469 of
Cr. PC., is extracted hereunder:
469. Commencement of the period of limitation :- (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall com- mence,-
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the per- son aggrieved by the offence or to any police ofcer, the frst day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police ofcer, whichever is earlier; or
(c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the frst day on which the identity of the offender is known to the per- son aggrieved by the offence or to the police ofcer making investi- gation into the offence, whichever is earlier.
Fair17
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
(2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.
30.According to Sec.467 of Cr. PC., in case of continuing offence, a fresh limitation shall begin to run on every movement of the time dur- ing which the offence continues.
31.In the light of the above provisions relating to the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence, which are punishable with imprison- ment up to three years, like the case on hand, it is necessary to see whether the complaint under Ex.P-1 is within the period of limitation pre- scribed under Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
32.A perusal of Ex.P-1 complaint clearly discloses that according to PW-1, the appellant/A1 left her conjugal society fve years prior to her fling Ex.P-1 complaint before the Court. Therefore, whatever harassment or ill-treatment that was allegedly meted out to PW.1 by the accused, it was fve years prior to Ex.P-1 complaint. Nowhere in the complaint, PW- 1 stated about any acts of harassment as envisaged under Sec.498-A of
IPC. within the period of three years prior to the date of Ex.P-1 complaint.
When on the face of the averments in the complaint itself, it is clear that the alleged offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC. did not take place within three years prior to Ex.P-1 complaint, taking cognizance of such complaint is specifcally barred under Sec.468 of Cr. PC. When the com- plaint itself is barred under Sec.468 of Cr. PC., the entire trial held on the basis of time barred complaint cannot be held to be sustainable under law. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.P-1 com- plaint based on which the accused was prosecuted and convicted, was barred by limitation as prescribed under Sec.468 of Cr. PC.
Fair18
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
33.Sec.473 of Cr. PC., provides extension of period of limitation and it is in two parts. The frst part contains non obstante clause and gives overriding effect to that section over Sec.468 to 472 of Cr. PC.
Therefore, while considering the question of limitation for an offence under Sec.498-A of IPC., i.e. subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband, the Courts should judge that question, in light of Sec.473 of Cr. PC., which requires the Courts, not only to examine as to whether the delay has been properly explained, but as to whether "it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice".
34.In the case on hand, as admitted by PW.1, this is the second complaint fled by her under Sec.498-A of IPC., and the similar case registered against the accused was ended in compromise. The explanation offered by PW.1 is that as the accused did not change his behavior, she gave Ex.P-1 subsequently. Except the interested and inconsistent evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the prosecution failed to prove with cogent evidence that the accused harassed PW.1 with a view to coerce her to meet an unlawful demand. An omnibus allegation that the accused was addicted to vices and used to beat PW.1 in drunken state cannot constitute an offence under Sec.498-A IPC. Furthermore, the fact that after 14 years of marriage, Ex.P-1 complaint was fled before the
Court, that too after compromising similar case before Lok Adalat, with some incidents allegedly taken place fve years prior to Ex.P-1 complaint, cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. There is no evidence to show that the conduct of accused is of such a nature as is likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or cause danger to her health or for unlawful demand of additional dowry, to attract the ingredients of Sec.498-A of IPC. On the other hand, PW.1 stated in Ex.P-1 that about seven years ago, the accused made
Fair19
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison. She also deposed in her evidence that before fling Ex.P-1, on one day, accused came to her parents’ house and consumed pesticide in front of her parents’ house. If really the accused used to harass
PW.1 for any reason, he would not have attempted to commit suicide. Further, in the absence of any independent evidence on behalf of the prosecution and in view of several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4.
35. Therefore in view of the above discussion and also considering the fact that there is a bar under Sec.468 of Cr. PC., to take cognizance of Ex.P-1 complaint, it is not safe to rely upon the interested and inconsistent evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to record a conviction against the appellant/A1. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Magistrate against the appellant/A1 for the offence punishable under
Sec.498-A of IPC., is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside and he is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.
36.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dt.17.04.2019 passed by the learned I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Huzurabad in C.C. No.556 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted under Sec.386 (b)
(i) of Cr. PC. The fne amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him after revision time is over.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of January, 2022.
Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
Fair20
Crl.A.No. 86 of 2019
-:-