HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64 of 2009 Date: December 12, 2011 Between: B. Lakshmi Devi … Petitioner And 1. Bathula Chinna Venkata Ramana & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No.14 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mydukur. 2. The complainant is the wife of the accused and at the time of their marriage some gold ornaments and cash were presented to the accused by the parents of the complainant. After some time the accused started harassing the complainant to bring money from her parents. The accused was also addicted to drinking and left the village about four years earlier and on 22.7.2005 when the complainant was at the house of her father, the accused came in drunken state and manhandled her and also demanded money from the father of the complainant. 3. The above complaint was registered and investigated into. During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Court has found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not convincing and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present revision is filed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is legal? 5. Point: P.W.1 is the complainant and P.W.2 is her father. The marriage was evidently performed about 16 years earlier and even according to the evidence of P.W.1 the accused was addicted to vices and left the village for a longer time. It was only on 22.7.2005 the accused said to have come to the house of the complainant and manhandled her. Therefore, in between this period, there is no material to show that the complainant and the accused are lived together. The demand for dowry also does not appear to be probable, since the accused is said to have left the company of the complainant for a longer period and was not found in the village. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and found to be not corroborative. In fact, no other village elder was examined. 6. In view of the above, the lower court has applied its mind and gave valid reasons for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and from the nature of the allegations on the evidence on record it cannot be said that the finding of the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is not proper. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed, as there are no merits. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 12, 2011. BSB