KATKURI RAVINDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No.513 of 1995 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnager are the appellants. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar filed charge sheet as against A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.19 of 1994 of Veenavanka Police Station under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that Vangala Raji Reddy and Vengala Thirupathi Reddy, residents of Jeelakunta Village of Odela Mandal are elder brothers of Katkuri Manjula, wife of A-1, resident of Narsingapoor village. It is also the case of the prosecution that about one year prior to 8-5-1994 marriage of Manjula was celebrated with A-1 and the said marriage alliance was proposed and the marriage was settled by Junnuthula Malla Reddy, the maternal uncle of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Manjula. At the time of betrothal ceremony, Vengala Raji Reddy agreed to pay an amount of Rs.52,000.00 as dowry and an amount of Rs.12,000.00 and half tola gold were given to A-1 and his father A-2 as part of dowry at the time of marriage. Raji Reddy agreed to pay the remaining dowry within one year. After the marriage, Manjula and A-1 led conjugal life for some days. Thereafter the accused started harassing Manjula for the remaining dowry amount. A-1 used to beat his wife Manjula, harassing and ill treating her to bring the remaining dowry amount from her parents. Raji Reddy came to know about the ill-treatment of his sister by A-1 and A-2 and took her to their house. Three days prior to 8-5-1994, A-1 and A-2 went to the house of Raji Reddy and asked him to send back Manjula to their house and at that time, a quarrel took place between them regarding the remaining dowry amount. Raji Reddy told A-1 and A-2 that he would pay the remaining dowry amount within a fortnight and sent his sister Manjula along with them to their house. Again A-1 and A-2 started harassing Manjula. Due to constant harassment, Manjula became disgusted with her life and on 8-5-1994 at 4.00 p.m., she consumed an organophosphate pesticide poison. Immediately she was shifted to a private hospital but the doctor did not agree to treat her. As per his advice, manjula was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, but while undergoing treatment, she died on 9-5-1994 at 5.30 a.m. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad had registered the same as P.R.C.No.102 of 1994 and the case was committed to the Court of Session, which was made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, who had recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and Ex.D-1 and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-B IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal is filed.

(2.) Sri Ramesh Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that almost all the witnesses were declared hostile and such evidence may have to be viewed with care and caution and in the light of the nature of evidence, which had been let in by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt as against appellants-accused. The learned counsel also had pointed out the peculiar procedure adopted in this case of declaring the witnesses hostile after certain witnesses were cross-examined and certain favourable answers were elicited during the course of cross-examination. The learned counsel also would submit that on the strength of such evidence, it cannot be said that such grave charges can be said to have been proved as against appellants- accused.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is the concern of the prosecution and the prosecution is at liberty to declare a witness hostile at any point of time and no-doubt, the Court may have to exercise the discretion at that stage and may have to record certain reasons while declaring the witness hostile. Except this, it cannot be laid down as a hard and fast rule that after completion of the cross-examination, the prosecution cannot seek the permission to declare the witness hostile. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on certain decisions in support of his submissions. It was further contended that when the witnesses are declared hostile, the falsehood may have to be separated from the truth and the truth can be relied upon and in this case, the witnesses in a half hearted manner had supported the version of the prosecution and also were not willing to support the version of the prosecution in toto. In such a case, on a careful scrutiny the Court may rely upon such portion of the evidence which can be believed and this approach adopted by the learned Judge cannot be said to be not in accordance with law and hence, the said findings are to be confirmed.