HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.38 OF 2005 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: Gunda Srinivas Reddy and 2 others ……Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP ……Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL R.C. NO.38 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioners’ counsel was absent on 05.03.2010. Today also the petitioners’ counsel is absent. As per Section 403 Cr.P.C, neither parties nor their counsel has got right of audience in a Revision Case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. I have perused the entire record in this Revision Case as well as records sent by the courts below. The petitioners 1 to 3 are A-1, A-3 and A-4. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gajwel in C.C.No.126 of 2001 found them guilty for offence under Section 498-A IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. On appeal, the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet, in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2004 confirmed the said convictions and sentences against the petitioners. A-1 is husband of the victim woman Gunda Gurumala (PW-1). They have two children. It is alleged that after three years of marriage when A-1 asked P.W.1 to bring one Tractor from her parents and started harassing her physically and mentally by beating her and by driving her away from the house, P.W.1 went to her parents’ house and informed the same, and that when parents of P.W.1 approached A-1 and requested him not to harass P.W.1, A-1 did not change his attitude towards P.W.1. It is further alleged that A-1 married A-2 as his second wife in a temple at Siddipet and has been living with her. In support of the prosecution case, apart from P.W.1, her mother P.W.3 and three more witnesses were examined. P.Ws.4 and 5 are elders in whose presence the panchayat was held. P.W.2 is one of the elders who settled marriage between A-1 and P.W.1 and also one of the elders who mediated dispute between them. It is evidence of P.W.2 that he tried to compromise the matter as elder and advised to mortgage land for purchasing Tractor and that accordingly it was done and that inspite of it, A-1 started harassing P.W.1 and that A-1 obtained signatures of P.W.1 for he going for second marriage. On perusal of entire record, it is evident that dispute between the accused and P.W.1 is not for the sake of any additional dowry or for Tractor, but it was due to second marriage of A-1 with A-2. In order to attract offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish ‘cruelty’ as envisaged in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of explanation contained in that Section. This is not a case where the victim committed suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health due to willful conduct of the accused. Therefore, Clause (a) of the explanation to Section 498-A IPC has no application herein. In order to bring the case under Clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC, there must be harassment of P.W.1 with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. On perusal of evidence, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is not for the sake of money for purchasing tractor or property, but it was due to second marriage of A-1 with A-2. Thus, Clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A IPC also has no application herein. In my opinion, both the courts below erred in finding the revision petitioners guilty of offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is evident that both the courts below did not find out whether ingredients required for offence under Section 498-A IPC existed or not. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the courts below against the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1, A-3 and A-4. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.03.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL RC NO.38 OF 2005 Date:12.03.2010. Gk.