THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.1417 of 2005 Date: 15.11.2011 Between: Smt. Devuni Sree Laxmi … Petitioner/ De facto complainant AND 1. Devuni Balaswamy 2. Devuni Sunkulaiah 3.Devuni Chandramma … Respondents/ Accused 4. The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1417 of 2005 ORDER: Three accused were charge sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by the wife of the first accused. The second accused is the father of the first accused. The third accused is the mother of the first accused. The learned trial Judge framed a single charge u/s.498-A IPC. The complainant examined herself as PW.1. She examined three other witnesses in support of her claim. The learned trial Judge considered that the prosecution did not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, PW.1, wife of the first accused, preferred the present revision. 2. The point for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any error of law or any infirmity and whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3. I may point out at the outset that although A.1 to A.3, who are respondents 1 to 3, are represented by a counsel, there was no representation and there were no submissions on behalf of the accused before me. I heard the counsel for PW.1 only. 4. It is settled law that in a revision assailing the acquittal by the trial Court, the complainant or the revision petitioner, as the case may be, shall establish that the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law and that the same should be set aside. The revision petitioner, therefore, shall first establish that the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She shall then show that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and suffers from a patent error of law before she can seek for setting aside the impugned judgment. 5. The marriage between PW.1 and A.1 was solemnized on 24.02.2000. It is the case of PW.1 that they lived happily for about 1½ year after their marriage and that the dispute started when PW.1 failed to fulfil the demand of A.1 for a sum of ` 50,000/- to enable A.1 to purchase a motor cycle. Her further case is that A.1 threw her out from the matrimonial home. A.2 and A.3, who are the parents of A.1, allegedly instigated A.1 to treat PW.1 cruelly. 6. As already pointed out, PW.1 is the complainant. PW.1 examined her relatives as PWs.2 to 4. She indeed more or less spoke supporting the complaint. PWs.2 and 3 are the parents of PW.1. PW.4 is the paternal uncle of PW.1. 7. PWs.2 and 3 deposed that they heard from PW.1 that A.1 harassed PW.1 physically as well as mentally and that A.1 demanded additional dowry of ` 50,000/-. PW.2 deposed that in 2001, when PW.3 went to A.1 to request A.1 to send PW.1 for Ugadi festival, A.1 beat PW.3 and PW.1 and necked them out from the house. PW.3 on the other hand deposed that A.1 took back PW.1 and thereafter, she came to know about A.1 beat PW.1 and necked her out from the house demanding additional dowry. Curiously, PW.4 deposed that the accused himself met his marriage expenses. 8. The trial Court considered that the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of her relatives perhaps is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of independent evidence. 9. Sri R. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the evidence of relatives could not be ignored. He placed reliance upon Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana[1]. It was observed by the Supreme Court in that case that relatives of the rival contenders could not be treated as untruthful witnesses. The Supreme Court considered that reason should be given when a plea of partisanship is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. The Supreme Court held thus: “There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 cannot be ignored and that the accused cannot be acquitted. 10. It is the case of PW.1 that she had been ill-treated and the ill-treatment was on the basis of demand for additional dowry. Practically, PWs.2 to 4 are not eyewitnesses to this incident. Their evidence is hearsay. Indeed, it is the case of PW.3 that she was beaten and that PW.1 was also beaten before her by the accused in 2001. This case was laid in 2002. No complaint was lodged at any time prior to July, 2002 by PW.1 or PW.3 about the misbehaviour of A.1. Apart from this factor, more or less there is no whisper in the evidence about the complicity of A.2 and A.3 in the commission of offence u/s.498-A IPC. 11. The learned counsel for PW.1 submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of A.1 at least beyond reasonable doubt. Harbus Kaur is a case where the relatives were direct witnesses for the incident. More so, the offences alleged therein were under Sections 323, 325 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Either relatives or neighbours of the accused must be aware about the commission of the offence by the accused. While so, PWs.2 to 4 are not direct witnesses for the ill-treatment of PW.1 by the accused. PW.1 did not choose to examine any independent witness, such as a resident of the locality, to prove her case. Consequently, Harbaus Kaur has no application to the facts of the present case. It is not as though the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 deserves to be disbelieved. This is a case where their evidence is hearsay evidence. To the extent of the alleged beating of PWs.1 and 3 by A.1 prior to Ugadi in 2001, there is no explanation why no report was filed prior to 07.07.2002. Thus, the evidence let in by the prosecution is totally insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court did not commit any error in considering that the prosecution failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, which does not suffer from any error of law. 11. The Criminal Revision Case, consequently, is found to be devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 15.11.2011 Isn [1] (Appeal (Crl.) No.370 of 2005)