STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M MADHUSUDHAN RAO
LAWS(SC)-2008-10-82
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on October 24,2008

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
M.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.K. Jain, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused A-1 in Sessions Case No. 129 of 1998 from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short Rs. I.P.C.) and acquitting him, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred this appeal.
(3.) Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows: Marriage between the de facto complainant (PW-1) and the respondent (A-1) was solemnized on 24th November, 1993. On 22nd May, 1996, the complainant sent a report (Ex.P-1) to the Additional D.G.P., CID, Hyderabad, inter alia, alleging that at the time of her marriage with A-1, on the insistence of A-1 and his mother (A-2), her father gave her one house, Rs. 60,000/- in cash, six tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs. 50,000/-. Still after the marriage, her husband, working as Reserve Sub-Inspector (RSP) at Security Printing Press, was pressurising her to bring Rs. 50,000/- more; he used to beat her up, scold, shout and threaten to kill her and on certain occasions he had also pressed her neck saying that he would kill her. It was also alleged that her mother-in-law (A-2), her husbands brother Prabhakar and his wife (A-4), and the second sister-in-law of her husband (A-3) and her husbands last brother also used to help her husband in beating and harassing her. It was further alleged that one Mrs. Jalaja, working as Telephone Operator in the Reserve Bank of India, also used to threaten her by saying that her husband (A-1) had married her and he did not like to stay with her. Branding her husband to be a gambler, drunkard and moving around with anti social elements, it was also alleged that about six months back her husband and his family members had made the first attempt to eliminate her by forcibly pouring poison into her throat and when her condition became serious, they informed her parents that she had taken poison. However, then she had not made any complaint to the police against her husband. But again on 19th April, 1996 at 11.00 a.m., her husband (A-1), his mother (A-2), his second brothers wife (A-3) and her husbands third brothers wife (A-4) forced her to consume poison and as a result thereof she was admitted in the nursing home at about 2.30 p.m. in an unconscious state. When she was in a semi conscious state, the police took her statement but she did not know what statement the police had recorded. Her husband informed her parents about the incident only in the evening though she was admitted in the hospital at 2.30 p.m.; her parents came later and although they had lodged a complaint with the police but no action was taken against any person. After being discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996, she went to stay with her parents and since then she is staying with them but neither her husband nor his family members have come to see her. As noted supra, the complaint regarding the incident on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.