HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.896 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the revision petitioner-A1 against judgment, dated 19.05.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2003 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, confirming judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.292 of 1998 by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the petitioner (A1) for short A1, was convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Heard. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The de facto complainant who is the wife of the accused, filed a report alleging that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband, i.e., A1 for additional dowry, and also with a view to get rid of her and to marry A2 in the case and thereafter A1 contracted second marriage with A2 and finally she was necked out from the matrimonial home. Basing on the report, the case was registered in Cr.No.72/97 on the file of W.P.C., CID and was investigated into and consequently charge sheet filed. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged and convicted him as stated above. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 that even though A1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 494 IPC, significantly, the charge under Section 494 IPC is not established and therefore there remains only the charge under Section 498-A IPC and further the circumstances of the case amply establish that subsequent to the alleged harassment of the de facto complainant by A1, some settlement took place and she filed maintenance case in the year 1991, but it was withdrawn because the matter was settled by an advocate whereby A1 agreed to pay Rs.500/- per month towards her maintenance and later when she went to the house of A1 to join his company, he refused to allow her and eventually, there is no evidence of harassment of the de facto complainant by A1 after 1991. Further, when the circumstances of the case amply establish that the de facto complainant and A1 are not living together from the date of filing of the maintenance case, the question of harassing her does not arise at all. On the basis of the material available for consideration, it is observed by the appellate Judge as follows: “On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is her consistent version that the appellant/A1 after getting job in the year 1995, started to harass her and used to beat her to additional dowry and thereafter sent her away from her matrimonial home along with her infant baby to Lakshmakkapalli to stay at her in-laws house with drew his company from P.W.1. One year after the delivery of her baby her husband again sent her from her in-laws house demanding her to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- stating that he has got job. When she expressed her inability to get money from her parents, A1 told her that he would contract second marriage if she did not bring additional dowry and went to his working place at Ditchpalli and there he contracted second marriage with A2 who is none other than his own neice and brought her to Lakshmakkapalli. Further it is her version to settle the matter, a panchayat was held at her parents house at Nemila village. In the said panchayat A1/appellant admitted before the elders about his contract of second marriage and gave a written settlement deed agreeing to give half of his salary every month and one acre of land to her situated at Lakshmakkapalli village which is marked as Ex.P.11 and certified copy is marked as Ex.P.12. Further it is her version after the settlement she joined the company of A1/appellant at Ditchipalli and after her joining with A1, A2 was sent to her parents house and thereafter she gave birth to a male child in the year 1989 and at the time of delivery A1 sent her to her in-laws house at Lakshmakkapalli and brought A2 to Lakshamakkapalli village and thereafter quarrels arose between her, and appellant and A2 and the appellant used to beat her stating as to why she has quarreled with A2, and sent her back to her parents house, as such she filed a maintenance case in the year 1991, but the same was withdrawn since the matter was settled by an Advocate, wherein A1 agreed to give Rs.500/- to her towards her maintenance. After that she went to the house of A1 to join his company, but he did not allow her, as such she returned to her parents house and thereafter A1 and A2 started living together and also begotten two sons. Ex.P1 is the complaint. She corroborated all the material particulars mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint I have gone through the other documents relied by her, which are marked as Ex.P2 to P13. Ex.P11 is original Ekarnama and it containing the signature of appellant and his father A3 and signature of panchayathdars who is examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 categorically stated about holding panchanama and the present of A1, A2 and P.W.1. No material is placed before court that signature of A1 and A3 on Ex.P11 are false and fabricated on the other hand it is proved by P.W.3 one of the elder in that panchayat.” Similar observation was made by the trial Court in the matter. Therefore, subsequent to the filing of maintenance case, admittedly, the complainant and the accused never lived together. Further, there is no acceptable evidence to the effect that during that period also there was harassment of the de facto complainant by the petitioner. Further, once the settlement took place and the de facto complainant compromised and lived along with A1, the question of prior harassment by A1 cannot be taken into consideration. Ultimately, this Court is of the opinion that the recording of conviction and sentence by the Courts below is not tenable. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner-appellant by the courts below. ____________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date:29.06.2011 Rns