HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.138 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-09-2006 passed in C.C. No.90 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, whereby A-2 to A4 were acquitted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 r/w. 114 IPC, contending, inter alia, that the trial Court failed to appreciate and evaluate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record in proper perspective and thereby misguided itself in finding A-2 to A-4 not guilty for the offences charged with and in acquitting them. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1, A-4 is sister of A-1 and A-5 is second wife of A-1; that they all are residents of Dhadesugar village of Sindhanur District of Karnataka State; that the marriage of revision petitioner - de facto complainant – G.Sree Padmavathi, daughter of Radhakrishna and Ammaji was performed with A-1 on 15.5.1987; that the parents of de facto complainant are the residents of Penumadam which is within the jurisdiction of the trial court; that at the time of the marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- besides Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam and other household articles ; that all the accused took her to Sindhanur District where A-1 has been doing business; that A-1 to A-4 started demanding more money as dowry as well as other articles from her parents and sent her back to her parents’ house; that on 14-2-1988, A-1 to A-4 left the de facto complainant at Siruguppa bus stand and absconded; that having no other alternative, she came to her parents house; that on 1-3-1991, A-1 to A-4 with a view to gain some dowry, again performed the marriage of A-1 with A-5 at Ballari and they both resided as wife and husband in Dhadesugar village of Raichur District and that one Mutcherla Suranarayana, Mutcherla Venkata Swamy Naidu, Kollepera Ramarao and D.Durvasarao have witnessed the second marriage of A-1. Basing on the private complaint, the trial Court referred the matter to police for investigation and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 494 r/w. 114 IPC against A-2 to A-4. As A1 and A-5 absconded, case against A-1 and A-5 was separated on 03-07-2003 and trial was proceeded against A-2 to A-4 only. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, got examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the material on record, the trial Court found A-2 to A-4 not guilty for the offences charged with and acquitted them. Questioning the legality of the said impugned judgment of the trial Court, and aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court has committed any error, illegality or irregularity in acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein - A-2 to A-4 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 r/w.114 IPC. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record including the judgment of the trial Court. 7. It is the case of the revision petitioner – de facto complainant that her evidence as PW.1 with regard to demanding of additional dowry by A-2 to A-4 along with A-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who are her mother and junior paternal uncle. A-2 to A-4 along with A-1 threatened the revision petitioner – de facto complainant that they would not allow her unless she brings gold ornaments, silver articles, furniture and a scooter. It is also her case that A-2 to A-4 along with A-1 dropped her at Siriguppa bus stand on 14-02-1988 asking her to go to her sister’s house as they were going to Madras to attend marriage. It is also her further case that A-1 performed second marriage with A-5 8. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent Nos.1 to 3 - A-2 to A-4 that the trial Court has recorded cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting them, and as such, the impugned order of acquittal does not warrant any interference from this Court. That the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations made by the revision petitioner – de facto complainant against A-2 to A-4. None of the prosecution witnesses have spoken to with regard to the alleged demand of additional dowry and other articles by A-2 to A- 4, and as such, the trail Court was justified in coming to a right conclusion that A-2 to A-4 were not guilty of the offences charged with under Sections 498-A and 494- r/w.114 IPC. 9. A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 goes to show that there is no overtact attributed against A-2 to A-4 with regard to demand of additional dowry as well as other articles. The evidence of PW.1- de facto complainant indicates that at that relevant point of time, she and her husband – A-1 lived in Brundhavan camp in a thatched house, and her father-in-law and mother-in-law lived in Jagannadhapuram village of Karnataka State which is intervened by river Thungabhadra. PW.1 herself admitted that father –in-law used to give amount to purchase provisions for her and her husband. PW.1 stated that A-1 married A-5 at Ballari in Anjaneya Swamy Temple, but there is no conclusive proof to establish the same, further, PW.1 did not prefer report to Police to that effect. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that A-2 to A-4 demanded additional dowry and other articles, and abetted the alleged marriage between A-1 and A-5. 10. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BABU v. STAE OF KERALA[1], it was held to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal, however while doing so the appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal strengthens the presumption of his innocence, as such, interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided unless there are good reasons for interference. 11. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or error warranting interference from this Court, and as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 29-09-2006 in C.C. No.90 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol. ___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J Date:__________________ Stp [1] (2010) 9 SCC 189