IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1270 OF 2004 Between: Janee Jhansi Lakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1270 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 (1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is directed against the judgment, dated 25.03.2004, in C.C.No.83 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada, whereunder and whereby, respondent Nos.2 to 6/A1 to A5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case may be stated as follows: Marriage of A1 with PW.1/petitioner herein was performed on 20.05.1997. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given towards pasupu kumkuma besides gold ornaments and other articles to the accused. After the marriage, PW.1 joined company of A1 at Gosala Village. For about one month they lived happily. Thereafter, A1, at the instigation of A2 to A5, started harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry and subjecting PW.1 to cruelty. Unable to bear the said harassment, PW.1 lodged a complaint. Police registered a case, enquired into, examined the witnesses and filed charge sheet under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 498A I.P.C., they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no oral evidence but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were got marked on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court upon considering the evidence on record, found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Challenging the same, the present revision case is filed by complainant/PW.1. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is very clear that A1 was harassing the petitioner to bring additional dowry; and that A2 to A5 were instigating A1 to harass petitioner; that merely because the independent witnesses turned hostile, that cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of PWs.1 to 3; that if evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is taken into consideration, it is clear that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein contended that there is no evidence to show that PW.1 was subjected to cruelty by the accused; that the trial Court upon proper appreciation of evidence on record rightly acquitted the accused; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. On the other hand, Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is clear that the accused were harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry; that when the accused made an unlawful demand, it is an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and hence, he prays to remand the matter. 11. In dealing with a revision challenging the order of acquittal, this Court would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal, not for the reason that this Court has no power to interfere with the order of acquittal, but in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent until contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Therefore, unless a finding is shown to be perverse, illegal or incorrect, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is not based upon any evidence on record. 12. For the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., prosecution has to establish that PW.1 was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband. Under explanation to 498A I.P.C., cruelty means (i) the willful conduct of the petitioner, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of her; (ii) or harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 13. PWs.1 to 3 are closely related. They speak about giving of Rs.2,50,000/- towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of performing marriage of PW.1 with A1. It is not their case that the amount was given to the accused as demanded by them. General or vague allegations are levelled against the accused stating that all the accused were harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry. The independent witnesses PWs.5 to 7 did not support the case of the prosecution. They are the best persons to speak about the alleged unlawful demand made by the accused, because they are the neighbours residing by the side of the house of A1 and PW.1. Except the vague statement made by these witnesses, they have not testified with regard to the specific instances. 14. Further more, their evidence appears to be full of improvements as no specific overt acts are attributed against any one of the accused either in Ex.P-1 or when they were examined by the police during the course of investigation. It is admitted fact that A1 filed a divorce petition before the Judge, Family Court, and after receipt of summons from the Family Court, admittedly PW.1 lodged Ex.P-1 report. Till then she kept quiet. If really there was any harassment with regard to the unlawful demand of additional dowry, she would have complained to the police long prior to the receipt of summons from the Family Court. Therefore, this circumstance would indicate that the present complaint is lodged as a counter blast to the petition filed by A1 for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court. Therefore, the trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 08, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1270 OF 2004 July 08, 2010