THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.486 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 14.10.2003 in C.C.No.349 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found accused Nos.1 to 8 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 109 IPC and acquitted them. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The marriage between A.1 and the defacto complainant took place in the year 1992. At the time of marriage, parents of the defacto complainant gave Rs.30,000/- towards ‘Pasupukumkuma’, gold ring worth Rs.4,000/- and household articles worth Rs.3,000/-. They lived together up to 1996 and they are blessed with two children, one daughter and one son. Thereafter, A1 addicted to vices and at the instigation of A.2 to A.8, A1 demanded the defacto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- from her parents and in that connection, she was subjected to harassment. The accused also tried to kill the defacto complainant by pouring kerosene over her body, but she escaped. On 5.2.2000 all the accused came to the village of the defacto complainant’s parents’ house and beat her and her parents demanding divorce. As such, she filed a private complaint before the court. As per the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, the police investigated into the matter and laid charge sheet into court against all the accused. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material brought on record found accused Nos. 1 to 8 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 5. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the court below has failed to consider the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 and that the cause of action is continuous one. 6. PW.1 reiterated what all she had stated in the private complaint. The evidence of PW.1 is that at the instigation of other accused, she was subjected to cruelty. Further evidence of PW.1 is that two years after she left for her parents house, all the accused came there and demanded additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and also demanded PW.1 to give divorce in case of failure to meet the demand and beat PW.1 and her parents. It is to be noted that initially in the year 1997 when the accused were allegedly subjecting the defacto complainant to cruelty and demanding additional dowry amount of Rs.20,000/-, she should have initiated criminal proceedings against them, but she filed a private complaint in the year 2000. The other accused against whom she made allegations are living away from A1 at various places. PW.1 has not specifically explained as to how the other accused instigated A 1 to bring her additional dowry and cause harassment. PW.2 is the mother of the defacto complainant. It is to be noted that PW.3, father of the defacto complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses, much less by PW.3 who is father of the defacto complainant and husband of PW.2 7. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality so as to call for interference from this court. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -03-2010 Stp