HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.168 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.237 of 2000 dated 11.11.2002 by which the conviction and sentence imposed against the 1st respondent-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in C.C.No.83 of 1999 dated 21.09.2000 by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, were set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-P.W.1 and the 1st respondent-A1 took place in the year 1979 and after marriage A1 and his mother i.e., A2 used to harass her both mentally and physically for additional dowry and also snatched her Mangalasutram and necked her out of the house. Subsequently, the defecto complainant lodged a complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No. 16 of 1997 was registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the accused and after completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A2, found the 1st respondent-A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. In an appeal preferred by the 1st respondent-A1, the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, allowed the said appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the 1st respondent-A1 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Since the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, preferred this revision. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The appellate Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, held that the evidence of P.W.1 besides considering the contents of Ex.P1 had not inspired to arrive at the conclusion for convicting the 1st respondent-A1. It is further held that the intention of P.W.1 in lodging Ex.P1-complaint against the accused is only to settle the matter in order to lead conjugal life with the 1st respondeant-A1. Further, Ex.P1-complaint does not disclose that P.W.1 was demanded by the 1st respondent-A1 to bring more dowry. Hence, I am of the view that the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the 1st respondent-A1. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-07-2010 Gsn.