HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No. 767 of 2009 O R D E R: This Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 04.09.2008 passed in C.C. No. 100 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Warangal, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate found the accused, who are five in number, not guilty for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A I.P.C. The petitioner is the de facto-complainant, who has been examined as P.W.1 in C.C. No. 100 of 2008. The brief facts of the case giving rise to filing of this Revision by P.W.1 are: P.W.1 was married to Accused No.1 – Dadishetti Shyam Kumar on 14.02.2001. At the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.2 lacs for the purpose of gold ornaments and clothes. Father of P.W.1 stated to have given a further sum of Rs.3 lacs to her towards Pasupu Kumkuma. Subsequently, the marriage came to be consummated. When P.W.1 gained pregnancy, the accused allegedly attempted to get the pregnancy aborted. Their attempts did not yield any fruitful result. P.W.1 gave birth to a child. The disputes between the parties came to be placed before the Family Counselors. The Family Counselors directed the accused to deposit the amount and set up a separate family. Since the accused did not oblige the advice given by the Family Counselors, P.W.1 presented a complaint before the Court, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No. 135 of 2004, for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Matwada (L&O) Police Station before the I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate at Warangal. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C. No. 359 of 2004. Subsequently, the case came to be transferred to the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, and the learned Magistrate re-numbered the case as C.C. No. 100 of 2008. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing the copies of the documents to them, the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He read over and explained the charges to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined five witnesses and marked 23 documents. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquitted them accordingly, by judgment dated 04.09.2008. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by P.W.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the Revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that compelling P.W.1 to withdraw money from her account amounts to cruelty. A further submission has been made that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and thereby, erred in recording acquittal of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged. P.W.1 is the de facto-complainant. Her principal grievance is that she was made to withdraw Rs.3 lacs from her account and give the same to Accused No.3, who utilized the same for his necessities. The trial Court considered this aspect and recorded a finding that it is purely a monetary transaction between P.W.1 and Accused No.3. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the judgment impugned in the Revision, which reads as hereunder: “ Coming to another amount said to have been given by P.W.1 is concerned as per the passbook, Ex.P6, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn on 01.03.2001. Except the same, and the oral evidence of P.W.1, no other evidence is placed that the amount was given to A-3. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1 itself, she has withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/- and given to A-3 as A-3 has necessities. Therefore, it is very clear that it is lending the amount and borrowing the amount to meet the necessities of A-3 and it cannot be said, the said amount is in consideration of the marriage and except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the accused has stated that it can be treated as dowry and failed to repay the same. As per evidence of P.W.1 herself, the matter was placed before the Family Counselling Centre. In the Family Counselling Centre, the members adviced the accused to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- which is the amount of dowry and other articles and set up a separate family. To establish that the accused admitted that the amount is dowry and agreed to set up a separate family he prosecution is expected to examine any one of the members of Family Counselling Centre. But the prosecution not examined any member of the Family Counselling Centre to establish the same. As per the evidence of P.W.1, she has further stated that she has given Rs.20,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam, Rs.10,000/- was given for purchasing marriage clothes and other amounts, for that also, there is no evidence except oral evidence. Though, P.W.1 has stated that a Hero Honda Splender was also purchased and given to A-1, no evidence is adduced when it was purchased, by whom it was purchased and when it was handed over to A-1. Under these circumstances, it is very clear that the prosecution not established by placing legally acceptable evidence that they paid dowry to accused and the accused demanded additional dowry and they presented any other articles other than customary in nature. P.W.5 who is investigating officer also has stated before the Court on oath that as per his investigation none of the accused demanded dowry or additional dowry. Under these circumstances, as the prosecution not proved the same, the question of discharging burden under Section 8-A of the Act does not arise as rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel.” It is the evidence of P.W.1 that her father gave Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry at the time of marriage. But the witness-P.W.2 stated that the brother of P.W.1 gave dowry at the time of marriage. There is no consistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the person who paid Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry to the accused at the time of marriage. Prosecution did not choose to examine the brother of P.W.1, who is stated to have paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused at the time of marriage, as a witness. Though P.W.1 claims that she withdrew Rs.3,00,000/- and had given the same to Accused No.3, except her ocular testimony, no other evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the same. The trial Court has evaluated the evidence of P.W.1 very cautiously and carefully and recorded a finding that the evidence of P.W.1 does not make out ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The Criminal Revision Case is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 9th September 2009 ksld