IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2108 of 2004 DATE: 20.12.2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. …… Appellant And Thota Sailoo and 2 others …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2108 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The State filed this appeal against acquittal of A-1 to A- 3/respondents 1 to 3 of offences under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 is husband of P.W-1/defacto-complainant. Their marriage took place on 13.05.1998. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, P.W-1’s parents viz., P.Ws 2 and 3 presented Rs.35,000/- in cash, 2 tolas of gold, 20 tolas of silver and household articles etc., and that after one year of the marriage, the accused harassed P.W-1 demanding Rs.10,000/- from her parents and that a panchayat was convened in that dispute and finally A-1 to A-3 beat and necked her out of the family house. Plea of A- 1 to A-3 is one of total denial and not guilty. During trial in the lower Court, the prosecution examined the victim as P.W-1, her parents and brother as P.Ws 2 to 4 and one of her villagers as P.W-5 apart from examining the investigating officer as P.W-6. Except evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 with regard to presenting of cash, gold, silver articles and household articles at the time of marriage, there is no other independent evidence to prove the said fact. In any event, the said presentations of the marriage were not by force or on demand. Even though P.W-1 alleged that after one year of the marriage A-1 demanded for Rs.10,000/- for purchasing vehicle and beat her, P.W-1 did not allege any demand or beating by A-2 and A-3. There was no evidence of participation of A-2 and A-3 in the offence either by way of demand of Rs.10,000/- or by way of beating or harassing P.W-1 for that purpose. No mediator or person who participated in the panchayat was examined. The prosecution mainly placed reliance on Ex.P-2 letter said to have been written by the Surpanch to P.W-1. The person who wrote Ex.P-2 letter is not examined, in order to prove the said letter. In any event, Ex.P-2 letter was not written by A-1. So, contents of Ex.P-2 cannot be used against A-1. P.W-1 admitted in cross-examination that A-1 came to their house several times to take back her from her parents house. It shows that because of petty quarrels between wife and husband, P.W-1 has chosen to file private complaint in the lower Court. Evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4 is based on only hearsay through P.W-1. In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly did not place any reliance on prosecution evidence and gave benefit of doubt to the accused. There are no circumstances to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 2) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 20, 2011 ksh