Holding

Harassment amounts to cruelty under Section 498A only when it is committed with the purpose of coercing the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property; otherwise it does not attract liability, and an acquittal cannot be disturbed absent a perverse error.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed the acquittal of M. Madhusudhan Rao, who was charged under Section 498A IPC for allegedly harassing his wife and forcing her to consume poison to extract an additional dowry of Rs 50,000. The trial court had convicted him, but the High Court set aside the conviction on re‑appraisal of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that under Section 498A, harassment constitutes "cruelty" only when it is intended to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property; mere harassment is insufficient. The Court also emphasized that appellate courts should not disturb an acquittal unless the lower court’s decision is perverse or illegal, and that a one‑month delay in lodging the FIR raises serious doubts about the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged harassment and forced poisoning amount to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498A IPC.
Whether the appellate court can interfere with an acquittal in the absence of a perverse or illegal finding by the lower court.
What impact does a delayed filing of the FIR have on the reliability of the prosecution’s case under Section 498A.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 420, s. 494, s. 498A

Subjects

Section 498Acrueltydowry harassmentappellate reviewacquittalFIR delayIndian Penal Codeevidencepoisoning

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1170

A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1697 OF 2008
OCTOBER 24, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
~-
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 49BA - Cruelty - Meaning of -
Held: For purpose of s. 49BA, every harassment is not "cru- I>,

c elty" - Only when harassment is committed for coercing a
woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful
demand for property, that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable
under s. 498A - Crime against Women.
Appeal - Criminal appeal - Interference by Appellate
D Court - Scope - Held: Where approach of the lower court in
'f.
considering the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegal-
ity or conclusion recorded by the court is such which could not
have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably
and judiciously and is liable to be characterized as perverse
E and only then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate
,.,.
court is obliged to interfere.
_.__
FIR - Lodging of - Delay in - Held: It is essential that
the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily ex-
'
plained - Importance of prompt lodging of FIR highlighted.
F ;-
According to the prosecution, Respondent-husband
(A-1) with assistance from his mother (A-2) and two sis-
ter-in-laws (A-3 and A-4) used to harass and beat his wife
(PW1) and also pressurized her to bring additional
Rs.50,0001- though at the time of marriage, on the insis-
G
tence of Respondent and his mother, the father of PW1 i.e.
,... ,."-
PW3 had already given one house, Rs.60,0001- in cash, six
tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs.50,000/- I-

It was alleged that on 19th April, 1996 i.e. about three 'j)

H 1170

··.~
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1171
MADHUSUDHAN RAO
~
years after marriage, Respondent and the three other ac- A
cused forced PW1 to consume poison as a result of which
she was admitted in a nursing home in an unconscious
state. PW1 was discharged from the hospital on 22nd April,
1996 whereafter she went to stay with her parents and
since then she is staying there. A complaint regarding the
said incident of forced poisoning was lodged by PW1 on
~
y 22nd May, 1996 whereafter the prosecution machinery
was set in motion.
The Trial Court held that though no specific instances
of harassment had come on record but the long course c
of conduct of Respondent showed that the allegations of
harassment were not totally baseless and on that ground
it ordered conviction of Respondent under s.498A IPC and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year. The other three accused were however acquitted. D
The High Court, however, on re-appreciation of the entire
evidence, set aside the conviction of Respondent.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the State
that the High Court took an unreasonable view in acquit-
ting the Respondent, overlooking his conduct before and E
after the marriage; that the evidence produced by the
prosecution clearly proves that even before marriage,
Respondent was insisting on transfer of house in his
name; that even on the date of marriage demand for
t money was made and though Respondent purchased F
lorry in the name of PW1, it was not by way of any love
and affection but to extract an additional amount of
Rs.50,000/- from her parents and thus in light of the sur-
rounding circumstances of the case a clear case for con-
viction under s.498-A IPC had been made out against the G
., Respondent.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. S.498-A 1.P.C. makes "cruelty" by husband
or his relative a punishable offence. The word "cruelty" H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A is defined in the Explanation appended to the said Sec-
tion. As per clause (b) of the Explanation, every harass-
ment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of
s.498-A IPC. The definition stipulates that the harassment
has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or
B any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand .. In
other words, for the purpose of s.498-A l.P.C. harassment
simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment
is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any
other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand
c for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable
under s. 498-A l.P.C. [Paras 10, 11] (1178-F; 1179-E, F, G)
Harbans Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab1 (1962) Supp 1
SCR 104; Shri Gopal & Anr. v. Subhash & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
174; State of MP v. Sanjay Rai (2004) 10 SCC 570; Vijaybhai
D Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors. (2004)
10 SCC 583 and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) ,
3 sec 755 - referred to.
2.1. There is no embargo on the appellate court to
review, reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon
E which the order of acquittal is founded. Yet, generally, the
order of acquittal is not interfered with because the pre-
sumption of innocence, which is otherwise available to
an accused under the fundamental principles of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
F innocent unless he is proved guilty by a Court of law, gets
further re-inforced and strengthened by his acquittal. It is
also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case and the one favourable to the ac-
cused has been taken by the Trial Court, it should not be
G disturbed. [Para 13] (1180-B, C)
2.2. Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower ;-
...
court in considering the evidence in the case is vitiated
by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded
by the court below is such which could not have been
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1173
MADHUSUDHAN RAO
\
possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and A
judiciously and is, therefore, liable to the characterized
as perverse, then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the
appellate court is obliged to interfere. In the present case,
it is clear that the High Court has not committed any error
in dealing with the evidence, which could be said to be 8
patently illegal or that the conclusion reached at by it is
wholly untenable, warranting interference. [Paras 13, 15]
(1180-0, E, F)
2.3. Though in the present case, it is true the Trial
Court observed that there is some evidence on record to c'
show that there was a demand for dowry even at the time
of marriage but it is clear that the foundation for action
against the respondent was laid when the complaint was
lodged by the wife on 22nd May, 1996 and the prosecu-
tion machinery was set into motion. Again it is true that in
the complaint there is a reference to the past conduct of D
the respondent and his family members but from the tenor
of the complaint, it is clear that the allegation of harass-
ment including the alleged poisoning incident is linked
solely with her failure to get an additional amount of
Rs.50,000/- from her parents for the purchase of lorry. E
[Para 16] (1180-A, B; 1181-A, B)
2.4. The order of acquittal of the Respondent is well
merited and does not call for interference, particularly
when the First Information Report was lodged by PW1
more than one month after the alleged incident of fore- F ·
ible poisoning. Delay in lodging the First Information Re-
port, more often than not, results in embellishment and
exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A

..
delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured G
version, exaggerated account of the incident or a con-
cocted story as a result of deliberations and consulta-
tions, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its ve-
racity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging
the report should be satisfactorily explained. [Para 18]
(1182-0, E, F, G) H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

i
A 2.5. In the present case, First Information _Report in
regard to the alleged occurrence on 19th April, 1996 was
lodged on 22nd May, 1996. After her discharge from the
hospitaJ on 22nd April, 1996, PW1 went to her parents'
house and resided there. In her testimony, PW1 has de-
B posed that since no one from the family of the accused
came to enquire about her welfare, she decided to lodge
the First Information Report. No explanation worth the
name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has
come on record. This circumstance raises considerable
c doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and
the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and
her father (PW-3), rendering it. unsafe to base the convic-
tion of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the sub-
stratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1)
is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be
D
rejected in its entirety. [Para 19] (1182-H; 1183-A, 8, C)
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Kamataka (2007) 4 SCC
415 - relied on.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
E
(1962) Supp 1 SCR 104 referred to Para 9
(2004) 13 sec 114 referred to Para 9
{2004) 10 sec 570 referred to Para 9
(2004) 10 sec 583 referred to Para 9
F
(2001) 3 sec 755 referred to Para 9
(2001) 4 sec 415 relied on . Para 14
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No. 1697 of 2008
'-
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2006 of r
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Crl. Appeal No. 259 of 2003
June Choudhari, D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant.
H
..... STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1175
~ MADHUSUDHAN RAO

R. Venkataramani, P. Venkat Reddy, Aljo K. Joseph and A
' Anil Kumar Tandale for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated B
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 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'l.P.C.') and acquitting c
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 D
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/ E
- in cash, six tolas of gold and household articles worth
Rs.50,000/-. Still after the marriage, her husband, working as
Reserve Sub-lnspecfor (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 F
he had also pressed her neck saying that he would kill her. It
was also alleged that her mother-in-law (A-2), her husband's
brother Prabhakar and his wife (A-4), and the second sister-in-
law of her husband (A-3) and her husband's last brother also
used to help her husband in beating and harassing her. It was
G
further alleged that one Mrs. Jalaja, working as Telephone
.• Operator in the Reserve Bank of India, also used to threaten
1
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,
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.
,
A it was also alleged that about six months back her husband and
l
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 mad.e any complaint to the
B 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
brother's wife (A-3) and her husband's third brother's 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,
c 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
D
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,
E 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1~96.
)

4. The complaint was forwarded to the Senior Executive
Officer, CID, Hyderabad and consequently on 7th August, 1996
a case was registered against accused A-1 to A-4 as also
F against the said Mrs. Jalaja under Sections 498-A, 420, 494,
307 l.P.C. After investigation, chargesheet was laid against
accused A-1 to A-4 for offences punishable under Sections 498-
A and 307 read with Section 34 l.P.C.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine
G witnesses. No evidence was produced in defence. The learned
Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, and relying on the
evidence of the father of the complainant (PW-3), nephew of />'
PW-3 (PW-4), a store clerk/colleague of PW-3 (PW-5), Security
Inspector/colleague of PW-3 (PW-6), and a neighbour of PW-1
H and PW-3 (PW-7), came to the conclusion that all the aforestated
....,...
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1177
MADHL)SUDHAN RAO [D.K. JAIN, J.]

\ items had been given as consideration for the marriage on A
demand of the accused though in the disguise of being gifts to
the bridegroom. The Trial Court also inferred that accused A-1,
who had purchased a lorry in the name of the complainant-
wife (PW-1) on 5th November, 1995 was harassing her to get
Rs.50,000/- from her parents for the purchase of lorry. Inter alia, B
observing that though no specific instances of harassment had
come on record but the long course of conduct of accused A-1
showed that the allegations of harassment were not totally
baseless, the trial judge finally found accused A-1 guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 498-A l.P.C. and accordingly c
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.8000/- with default stipulation. Out of the
fine amount, a sum of Rs.6000/- was ordered to be paid to PW-
1. However, he did not find accused A-1 guilty under Section
307 l.P.C. and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge.
D
Accused A-2 to A-4 were not found guilty of both the charges
framed against them and were acquitted accordingly.
6. Aggrieved, the respondent (A-1) challenged his
conviction by preferring appeal before the High Court. The High
Court, as stated above, on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, E
has set aside the conviction. Against this judgment, the State of
Andhra Pradesh is in appeal before us.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Mrs. June Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing F
on behalf of the State vehemently submitted that the High Court
has taken an unreasonable view in acquitting the respondent,
overlooking his conduct before and after the marriage. It was
submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly
proves that even before the marriage, the respondent (A-1) was
G
insisting on transfer of the house in his name; even on the date
.. 1 of marriage demand for money was made and though the lorry
was purchased in the name of the complainant, it was not by
way of any love and affection but to extract more money from
her parents. Learned counsel, thus, argued that in the light of
H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. ~

A these surrounding circumstances, a clear case for conviction .,
.
under Section 498-A l.P.C. had been made out against the
I
respondent. \

9. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing
,__
on behalf of the respondent, while supporting the view taken by .--
B the High Court, submitted that the High Court having re-
appreciated and carefully analyzed the entire evidence before
reaching the conclusion that no case for conviction of the
respondent had been made out, this Court should be loathe to
.
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It
c was argued that apart from the fact that in the light of the evidence r-
on record no illegality can be attributed to the conclusion
recorded by the High Court, even otherwise, it is well settled
principle of law that where on an appraisal of the evidence,
adduced in the case, the court below has taken a plausible view, ~-

D the appellate court should not interfere, particularly with an order •
,,._
of acquittal, even if different view can possibly be taken. In support
-<.
of the proposition, reliance was placed on the decisions of this
Court in Harbans Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 1 ; Shri Gopal
& Anr. Vs. Subhash & Ors. 2 , State of M.P Vs. Sanjay Rai3,
E Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel & 1.-
Ors. 4 and State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. 5 1--

10. In order to appreciate the rival stands, it would be useful
to notice the statutory provisions. Section 498-A l.P.C. makes
"cruelty" by husband or his relative a punishable offence. The
F word "cruelty" is defined in the Explanation appended to the
said Section. Section 498-A l.P.C. with Explanation reads thus:
,.._
~
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband
G
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such "'
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be ~
,,__ •,
liable to fine. \ I,,..

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
H means-

r
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1179
MADHUSUDHAN RAO [D.K. JAIN, J.] .. ~

(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is A
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related B
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
~
or any person related to her meet such demand."
11. Thus, providing a new dimension to the concept of c
"cruelty", clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A l.P.C.
postulates that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute
"cruelty". Such wilful conduct, which is likely to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
D
the woman would also amount to "cruelty". Clause (b) of the
> Explanation provides that harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure "Y her or any person related,
to her to meet such demand, would also constitute "cruelty" for E
the purpose of Section 498-A l.P.C. It is plain that as per clause
(b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for
the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does
not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-Al.P.C.
The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a F
definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to
her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose
of Section 498-A l.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty"
and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of
coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet G
an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty"
.... -< punishable under Section 498-A l P.C .
1

12. Having noticed the basic ingredients which are
required to be proved in order to bring home an offence under
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A Section 498-A 1.P.C., at this juncture, we may also briefly note
the general principles to be kept in view by the appellate court
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal.
13. There is no embargo on the appellate court to review,
reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order
B of acquittal is founded. Yet, generally, the order of acquittal is
not interfered with because the presumption of innocence, which ·
is otherwise available to an accused under the fundamental
principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a court of
C law, gets further reinforced and strengthened by his acquittal. It
is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused
has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed.
Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower court in
D considering the evidence in the case is vitiated by some
manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below
is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any
court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable
to the characterised as perverse, then, to prevent miscarriage
E of justice, the appellate court is obliged to interfere.
14. All these principles have been succinctly culled out by
one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) in Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka 6 •
.F 15. Bearing the aforestated broad principles in mind and
having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, .-
in our judgment, the High Court has not committed any error in
dealing with the evidence, which could be said to be patently
illegal or that the conclusion reached at by it is wholly untenable,
G warranting our interference.
16. Though it is true the Trial Court has observed that there
is some evidence on record to show that there was a demand
for dowry even at the time of marriage but it is clear that the
foundation for action against the respondent was laid when the
H complaint was lodged by the wife on 22nd May, 1996 and tJ1e . I

/'
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1181
MADHUSUDHAN RAO [D.K. JAIN, J.]

prosecution machinery was set into motion. Again it is true that A
in the complaint there is a reference .to the past conduct of the
respondent and his family members but from the tenor of the
complaint, it is clear that the allegation of harassment including
the alleged poisoning incident is linked solely with her failure to
get an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents for B
the purchase of lorry. Furthermore, though the Trial Court records
that in the evidence there are no specific Jnstances of
harassment, yet it has proceeded to presume that long course
of conduct of the respondent is indicative of the fact that the
allegation of harassment is not totally baseless. Even the deposit C
of initial amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by the respondent for the
purchase of lorry in the name of the complainant has been
doubted by the Trial Court. It is pertinent to note that in so far as
the allegation of poisoning by the accused to kill the complainant
is concerned, the Trial Court has found the evidence of PW-3-
the father of the complainant (PW-1) to PW-7 to be unreliable
0
and has rejected the version of the prosecution to that extent.
Adversely commenting on the conduct of PW-3, the Trial Court
has also observed that none of the accused attempted to
escape after the incident which corroborates the anxiety of
accused A-1 to A-4 about the life of the complainant. Rejecting E
the prosecution version based on the complaint, accused A-2
to A-4 were acquitted by the Trial Court. In the light of these
circumstances, the learned Judge of the High Court entertained
grave doubts about the correctness of the prosecution story.
F
17. Analysing and re-appreciating the entire evidence
threadbare, in. particular the testimony of the complainant (PW-
1) and her father (PW.. 3}, the learned Judge has observed that
though as per her complaint (Ex.P-1 }, the respondent had been
pressurising her to bring Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry for G
purchase of lorry but her version was not supported even by her
1 father (PW-3). The learned Judge, on an analysis of the entire
evidence, reached the conclusion that there is no direct
evidence, other than the self-serving testimony of PW-1
regarding alleged beatings or scolding; if really the version of
H,
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A PW-1 that all the accused attempted to kill her by forcibly pouring
poison in her mouth, not once but twice, she would not have
kept quiet without reporting the matter to the police; even after
the second incident she kept quiet for a period of one month;
the contents of the complaint clearly showed that PW-1 (the
B complainant) wanted to see that the respondent loses his job in
the police department and that merely because PW-1 attempted
to commit suicide, it cannot be presumed that only on account
of harassment or cruelty meted out to her that she made an
attempt to commit suicide. Taking all these circumstances into
C consideration, the learned Judge held that it was not safe to
rely on the evidence of PW-1, more so, when her relations with
the husband were very much strained and, therefore, the Trial
Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the respondent
also while acquitting accused A-2 to A-4.
D 18. Having gone through the depositions of PW-1 and PW-
3, to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the ~
State, we are convinced that in the light of the overall evidence,
analysed by the High Court, the order of acquittal of the
respondent is well merited and does not call for interference,
E particularly when the First Information Report was lodged by
the complainant more than one month after the alleged incident
of forcible poisoning. Time and again, the object and importance
of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been
highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more
F often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which t
is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the
incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and
G consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its
veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the
report should be satisfactorily explained. ·~
19. In the present case, as noted supra, First Information ·
Report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 191h April, 1996
H was lodged on 22nd May, 1996. Admittedly after her discharge
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. 1183
MADHUSUDHAN RAO [D.K. JAIN, J.]

from the hospital on 22n° April, 1996, the complainant went to A
her parents' house and resided there. In her testimony, the
complainant has deposed that since no one from the family of
the accused came to enquire about her welfare, she decided
to lodge the First Information Report. No explanation worth the
name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come B
on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises
considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint
and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and
her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of
the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the C
evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be
unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that
the judgment of the High Court, acquitting the respondent, does
not suffer from any infirmity, warranting our interference. The D
> appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

,•