PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KAMIDI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these two matters arise out of the judgment dated 23.05.2003 delivered in C.C. No. 290 of 1999 and the accused in these two cases are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) The learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, vide his judgment dated 23.05.2003, acquitted A1 to A4 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(2) IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the State preferred Crl.A. No.559 of 2006, while the de facto complainant preferred Crl.R.C. No. 926 of 2007.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.1992, in Thokada village, the marriage of PW1 - de facto complainant with A1 was performed. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. At the time of the marriage, the father of PW1 gave 30 sovereigns of gold, Rs.25,000/- towards purchase of Scooter and Rs.60,000/- for purchasing furniture and also agreed to give Ac.06.30 cents of land to A1 towards Pasupukunkuma. For three years, the accused demanded his wife and father-in-law to sell away Ac.06.30 cents of land for the purpose of purchasing land at Kurada, to which, his father-in-law agreed. When A1 demanded that the sale proceeds of the land should be deposited in the bank, his father- in-law entertained suspicion as to the bona fides of the accused. Taking into consideration the fact that A1 was harassing PW1 for the last three years to sell away the property, ultimately, her father refused to sell away the land. Then, A3 - mother of A1, abused PW1 saying that after her death A1 would contact another marriage. A2 wrote a letter asking the father of the de facto complainant to sell away the land in question. In that connection, all the accused threatened PW1 that they would kill her by leaking gas and pouring kerosene on her if she failed to sell away the land in question. Since PW1 was not blessed with any issue, the accused demanded her to get Rs.70,000/- from her parents towards D & C operation of PW1. When the father of PW1 expressed his inability, all the accused abused him, while A1 and A2 beat PW1 and drove her out of their house. Subsequently, A1, A2 and A4 went to the father of PW1 and demanded him to dispose of the land in question and also to give Rs.70,000/- towards operation. Unable to bear the harassment, PW1 lodged Ex.P1 - complaint with the police, based on which, Cr.No.105 of 1998 was registered against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(2) IPC, and on 30.09.1998, at 05.00 P.M., A1 to A3 were arrested and sent for remand. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against them. Charges under Sections 498-A and 506(2) read with Section 34 I PC were framed against them.