S GOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant along with 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 months' R.I. and to a fine of Rupees 500/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for four months for the offence under Section 420, IPC and to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- 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 (Cri.) 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 S.L.P. (Ci) 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 the year 1985 and on completion of the training was posted as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in Jammu and Kashmir Police Force. His brother, the second accused, was at the relevant time working with the Osmania University at Hyderabad. PW-1, Shri G. Narayana Reddy, the complainant, was practising as a lawyer at Hyderabad. PW1 has four daughters. Ms. Vani is the eldest among the four daughters. She was working as a cashier with the State Bank of India Hyderabad. PW 1 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 PW 1. Later on PW-2 introduced the second accused to PW-1, 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 them approved each other for marriage. It is alleged that on 6-5-1985, the second accused accompanied by PW-2 and some others went to the house of PW-1 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 by 6-5-1985 or on 7-5-1985. It is alleged that as per the terms settled between the parties, PW-1 agreed to give 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. PW-1, however later on insisted on having an engagement ceremony and contacted the first accused but the first accused persuaded PW-1 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 we 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.P-1 which accompanied the bank draft, some reference was allegedly made regarding the settlement of dowry. It is alleged that the first accused later on wrote several letters including Exhibits P6, P7, P9 and P10 to Ms. Vani. It is the prosecution case that the second accused, on being approached by PW-1 for fixing the date of marriage, demanded Rs.1 lakh instead of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of car. The second accused also insisted that the said amount should be paid before marriage. The 'dowry' talks between the second accused and PW-1, however, remained inconclusive. Later on the date of marriage was fixed as 2-11-1985. On 1-10-1985 the first accused allegedly wrote a letter, Exhibit P-6 to Ms. Vani asking her to cancel the date of marriage or to fulfil the demands made by his elders. The first accused came to Hyderabad on 20-10-1985 when PW-1 told him about the demand of additional payment of Rs.50,000/- made by the second accused for the purchase of car. The first accused told P.W. 1 that he would consult his brother and inform him about it and left for his native place. It is alleged that on his return from the village, the first accused asked PW-1 to give Rupees 75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as agreed upon earlier instead of Rs.1 lakh as demanded by the second accused. According to the prosecution case this talk took place in the presence of Shri Narasinga Rao (not examined). The first accused suggested that PW-1 should give Rs.50,000/- immediately towards the purchase of the car and the balance of Rs.25,000/- should be paid within one year after the marriage but PW-1 did not accept the suggestion. According to the prosecution case 'Varapuja' was performed by PW-1 and his other relatives at the house of the second accused on 31-10-1985. At that time PW-1 allegedly handed over to the first accused, a document Exhibit P-13 dated 12-10-1985, purporting to settle a house in the name of his daughter Ms. Vani along with a bank pass book. Exhibit P-12 showing a cash balance of Rs.50,881/- in the name of Ms. Vani. The first accused is reported to have, after examining the document Exhibit P-13, flared up saying that the settlement was for a Double Storeyed House and the document Exhibit P-13 purporting to settle the house in the name of Ms. Vani was only a single storey building. He threatened to get the marriage cancelled if PW-1 failed to comply with the settlement as arrived at on the earlier occasions. The efforts of PW-1 to persuade the first accused not to cancel the marriage did not yield any results and ultimately the marriage did not take place. The first accused then returned all the articles that had been given to him at the time of 'Varapuja'. Aggrieved, by the failure of the marriage negotiations, PW-1 on 22-1-1986 sent a complainant to the Director of National Police Academy where the first accused was undergoing training. Subsequently, PW-1 also went to the Academy to meet the Director when he learnt from the Personal Assistant to the Director of the Academy that the first accused was getting married to another girl on 30th of March, 1986 at Bolaram and showed to him the wedding invitation card. PW-1, thereupon, gave another complaint to the Director on 26-3-1986, who, however, advised him to approach the concerned police for necessary action. PW-1 filed a report Ex.P-20 at Chikkadapalli Police Station on 28-3-1986. The Inspector of Police PW-7, registered the complaint as Crime Case No. 109/1986 and took up the investigation. During the investigation, various letters purported to have been written by the first accused to Ms. Vani were sent to the handwriting expert PW-3, who gave his opinion regarding the existence of similarities between the specimen writting of the first accused and the disputed writings. Both the first accused and his brother, the second accused, were thereafter charge-sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 420, IPC read with an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act and convicted and sentenced as noticed above.