THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.NO1254 OF 2002 AND CRL.A. NO.436 OF 2003. DATED: 21-12-2009. CRL.R.C.NO1254 OF 2002 Between: G.Jayaprada … Petitioner/De facto Complainant and 1.The State rep. By its P.P. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant 2.A.Anjaneyulu … Respondent/Accused CRL.A. NO.436 OF 2003. The State rep. By its P.P. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant/Complainant A.Anjaneyulu … Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.NO1254 OF 2002 AND CRL.A. NO.436 OF 2003. COMMON JUDGMENT: Criminal Revision Case No.1254 of 2002 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed by the petitioner/de facto complainant against the judgment, dated 21-06-2002 in Crl.A.No.428 of 2001, on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in setting aside the conviction of the 2nd respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P.Act’) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act, as recorded by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment, dated 29-11-2001 in C.C.No.35 of 1998. Criminal Appeal No.436 of 2003 by the State under Section 378 (1) and (4) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 21-06-2002 in Crl.A.No.428 of 2001, on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case, may be stated as follows: The marriage of P.W.1 (Jayaprada) with the accused was performed on 05-11-1995 with sufficient dowry as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, she joined her husband in the matrimonial home. The accused at the instigation of his family members, subjected P.W.1 to cruelty and harassment by ill- treating her mentally and physically on one pretext or the other. She was not provided with proper food and the accused forced her to get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- or to register one acre of land of her father in the name of his father. Her marriage with the accused was not consummated and the accused threatened her that he has married her to take revenge on her and her family members. Unable to bear the harassment, she left her matrimonial home and gave complaint to police, who registered a case under Section 498-A IPC and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. Charges under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 and 6 of D.P.Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. 6. The trial Court upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 498-A IPC, convicted and sentenced him as above. On appeal by the accused, the appellate Court vide impugned judgment set aside the said convictions and sentences. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant preferred Criminal Revision Case and the State preferred the Criminal Appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused of the offences with which he was charged beyond all reasonable doubt? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-de facto complainant in Criminal Revision Case contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very clear that the accused was harassing P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, that any unlawful demand for property or valuable security is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, but the appellate Court purely basing on minor omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 acquitted the accused and hence, he prays to set aside the judgment of the appellate Court. 9. Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very clear with regard to demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- by the accused and hence, she prays to set aside the judgment of the appellate Court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that there was no scope or possibility for the accused to demand additional dowry in view of the fact that the marriage was not consummated and P.W.1 did not join her husband as he is impotent and hence, he prays to dismiss both the revision and the appeal. 11. There cannot be any dispute that revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are improper or incorrect or illegal, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. A finding can be said to be perverse when it is not based upon the admissible evidence. 12. While dealing with the order of acquittal, though the appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence, but it will slow in interfering with the same in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. 13. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means- “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is 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 (a) 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 by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 14. Section 4 of D.P.Act reads thus: “If any person demands directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he is liable for punishment”. 15. Admittedly, P.W.1 stayed with her husband (accused) for about one month after her marriage. On 25-12-1995, P.W.2 (father of P.W.1) brought P.W.1 to his house. Thereafter, P.W.1 did not visit the house of the accused. It is not in dispute that when P.W.1 attributed impotency to the accused, he was not sent to medical examination, but the outcome or result of such medical examination is not brought on evidence. Admittedly, the marriage was not consummated. A bald allegation was levelled against the accused that he was demanding P.W.1 to bring Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry or to register one acre of land. When the marriage itself was not consummated, question of demanding additional dowry does not arise. The appellate Court found certain material omissions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and therefore, not placed any reliance on their evidence, who are close relatives. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have denied about P.W.1 coming to their house on 25-12-1995 and informing that the accused was harassing her. Though contradictions were marked as Exs.D1 to D3, in the evidence, P.Ws. 1 to 3 stated that P.W.2 is the person who brought P.W.1 to his house on 25-12- 1995. Therefore, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have not testified actual sequence of events with regard to P.W.1 coming to the house. When the marriage itself was not consummated, it is highly improbable to believe that the accused demanded some money towards additional dowry. Therefore, after considering the evidence, the accused was rightly acquitted and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 16. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Case and Criminal Appeal are dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 21- 06-2002 in Crl.A.No.428 of 2001, on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:21-12-2009 Hsd