LAWS(APH)-2003-8-113

NATARI PARVATI Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On August 22, 2003
NATARI PARVATI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the order of acquittal in C.C.No. 365 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present case are as follows: The marriage of Parvathi with A-l took place about 11 years prior to 13-5-1995 at Kodandaramaswamy Temple at Gudur according to Hindu customs. Three years after the marriage, Parvathi gave birth to a female child and the child died subsequently. After the death of the child, A-1 started harassing P.W. 1 as she did not beget further children and started ill-treating her that he would marry second time. A-1 also compelled P.W. 1 to sign on papers and to give consent for the second marriage. But P.W. 1 refused to do so. Subsequently, A-1 started ill-treating her demanding to get 25,000/- as additional dowry fromher father. Her father did not pay the amount. Subsequently, A-l married A-2, who is the daughter of A-4 and A-5. A-3 is the brother of A-4, A-6 is the mother of A-4 and A-5 and A-7 is the cousin of A-5. On coming to know about the second marriage, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint with the police. The police registered the case and after investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused. Basing on the material on record charges have been framed against the accused under Sections 498-A, 494 read with Section 109 IPC. They pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution. P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exhibits P-l to P-6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined but Ex.D-1 was marked. The lower court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC against P.W. 1 and the prosecution has also failed to prove second marriage between A-l and A-2 and, accordingly, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that A-l demanded additional dowry of Rs. 25,000/- and demanding of additional dowry is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. There was no reason for P.W. 1 to implicate her husband falsely and that minor discrepancy would occur even in the case of only truthful witness and if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is accepted certainly the offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the accused. She further contends that during the subsistence of the first marriage, A-1 married A-2 second time and if the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 is accepted the marriage of A-l with A-2 is proved as the first marriage of A-l with P.W. 1 is still subsisting. The offence under Section 494 IPC is made out against the A-l and A-2 because they married knowing fully well that the first marriage was subsisting and, therefore, they are liable for punishment.