SANGA SUNITHA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, THROUGH SHO, PS KARIMNAGAR I TOWN, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present appeal, the appellant seeks a direction, thereby to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2016 in Crl.A.No.62 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and consequently to punish the accused/respondent No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of Penal Code and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P.Act ").

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that 15 days after the marriage, A1 started harassing PW.1 for additional dowry and the same was presented by her parents. To prove the said fact, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4. According to the evidence of PW1, A1 started harassing PW.1 for additional dowry of Rs.50,000.00 immediately 15 days after the marriage and the same was informed to her parents. During Sankranthi, her parents’ invited her and A1 to their house and they fulfilled the demand and paid an amount of Rs.50,000.00 as additional dowry at their residence. She also stated that prior to marriage, A1 informed her that he worked in Australia for some time and thereafter worked in TATA Company at Hyderabad by saying so he made them to believe that he is employee and induced her to marry him. Subsequently, she came to know that he was an unemployee. At the time of filing her report as he is working in Reliance INFO Company Ltd., he was not working anywhere. Subsequently also A1 along with father-in-law Ramaswamy and mother-in-law Manemma and sisters-in-law demanded additional dowry and A1 confined her in a room and A5 used to instigate A1 through phone. Therefore, a panchayat was held on 10.11.2005, and in the said Panchayat, A1 agreed to look after PW.1 well. A1 gave undertaking and compromised with PW.1. However, A1 continued harassing PW.1 even after the compromise also. Therefore, PW.1 presented a report and accordingly a case under Sec. 498-A Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act was filed against the respondent/accused (A1).

(3.) A perusal of evidence of PW.1, she failed to establish what was the source of her father to give that amount to A1 She admitted that Ex.P3 (Pabandinama dt 10.11.2005 executed before elders) and Ex.P4 (Pabandinama dt 10.11.2005 executed by A1) are written by A1 after filing of Ex.P1 report. Thus, it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW.1 that A1 with a view to compromise the dispute might have executed Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and that does not mean that A1 had admitted about the alleged harassment made by him for additional dowry.