HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.811 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the de facto complainant against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.350 of 2004, dated 09.0.2005, whereby he acquitted the respondents, who are arrayed as accused, for the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. The case of the prosecution is as follows: PW.1 is the legally wedded wife of A.1 and their marriage was performed on 26.06.1999 at Annadanasatram, Guntur. A.2 is the sister-in-law and A.3 is the mother-in-law of PW.1. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was given towards dowry by the parents of PW.1 and Rs.6,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam. After marriage, PW.1 and A.1 lived amicably along with A.2 and A.3. They constructed a house at Velanginagar, Guntur and beside that house, the Government assigned a constructed house to the natural mother of A.1 at Swarnabharathinagar, Guntur. A.1 to A.3 are said to have demanded PW.1 to bring Rs.50,000/- from her father i.e. PW.2 towards the repairs of the house at Swarnabharathinagar, Guntur. Accordingly, PW.1 brought Rs.5,000/- from PW.2. Thereafter, the accused started scolding and assaulting PW.1 to bring the remaining amount. It is alleged that A.1 is said to have been residing with another woman by name Ankamma and he beat PW.1 with a stick and necked her out of the house. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the police. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked. After evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence adduced by the witnesses did not attract the offence alleged under Section 498-A IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second limb of Section 498-A IPC would clearly be attracted in view of the evidence adduced by PW.1. This Court is of the view that to establish a case under Section 498-A IPC, if there is direct evidence adduced by the aggrieved party-wife, the same can be appreciated. For better appreciation, it would be necessary to record the evidence of PW.1 in chief-examination, which runs as follows: “I am the resident of Guntur and my native place is Tadikonda. My in- laws place is Guntur. A.1 is my husband, A.2 my sister-in-law and A.3 is my mother-in-law. My marriage with A.1 was performed on 26.06.1999 at Annadanasatram, Guntur. By that time an amount of Rs.60,000/- was given as dowry to my father-in-law and also Rs.6,000/- towards adapadachu landchanalu to my father-in-law. After the marriage, myself and A.1 live amicably along with A.2 and A.3 and my father-in-law near Annadanasatram, Guntur. Later, we shifted our residence to Mutyalreddynagar, Guntur and we were there for about two months. We constructed a house at Velanginagar, Guntur. Beside that house the government assigned one constructed house at Swarnabharathinagar, Guntur. A.1 to A.3 demanded Rs.50,000/- and asked to bring from my father for repairs to the house at Swarnabharathinagar, Guntur. Accordingly, I went to my parents’ house and brought Rs.5,000/- from my parents and paid to my father-in-law. In the house at Venlanginagar, we all resided separately. The accused began scolding and assaulting me to bring money, and A.1 asked me to leave the house. A.1 has been keeping a woman viz., Ankamma and residing with her. Since last one year A.1 is not residing with me. A.1 beat me with a stick and necked me out from house and locked the house. On the next day morning, I left to my parents house at Tadikonda and I am attending to my duties at Hindu College, Guntur from Tadikonda. Therefore, I filed this case against the accused. I have given report to the police. The police did not take my complaint and not registered the case. The matter was referred to the Family Counseling and the matter was not settled at Family Counseling. Therefore, I filed this case in this Court under Ex.P.1. Prior to the filing of the case I got issued a legal notice to accused. The accused also got issued a reply notice to my notice. The copy of report given to police is enclosed to Ex.P.1. Police examined me.” A reading of the evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the allegations are that firstly, “A.1 to A.3 demanded Rs.50,000/- from her father towards the repairs of the house at Swarnabharathinagar, Guntur, and, accordingly, she went to her parents’ house and brought Rs.5,000/- and paid to her father-in- law”; and secondly “the accused began scolding and assaulting to bring money”. Another allegation was in connection with A.1’s illicit intimacy with another woman. The first limb of evidence adduced by PW.1 clearly indicates that the money was demanded for the purpose of carrying out the repairs to the house where PW.1 resides along with the accused, but, whereas, in the second part, she has not specifically stated as to who actually demanded the money for the said purpose. The only allegation made against the accused was that they started scolding and assaulting and that PW.1 has not clearly stated, in her evidence, against any particular accused. Apart from the above, there is no other allegation on the entire reading of the chief-examination of PW.1, even though the cross- examination of PW.1 and the evidence of other witnesses are regarding mediations conducted between the accused and DW.1 in connection with the domestic quarrels and illicit intimacy of A.1 with another woman. For better appreciation, it would be relevant to extract Section 498-A IPC: 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that the petitioner is not pressing for reversal of the order of the learned Magistrate as far as respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. Learned Counsel contended that the allegations would not attract the first limb for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, but whereas, the second limb of Section 498-A IPC would certainly be attracted on the basis of the evidence adduced. As stated above, the second limb of Section 498-A IPC speaks of two things. One is harassment of a woman by the husband and his relatives, more particularly, in connection with “unlawful demand of any property or valuable security”. In this case, it is nowhere stated in the evidence adduced by the de facto complainant that the harassment was in connection with demand of any property or valuable security. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the view that the allegations do not attract the second limb for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Magistrate, having relied on the decisions of this Court and Apex Court, appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The power of this Court is very limited. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate. The Criminal Revision Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAJA ELANGO, J Date:09.12.2010 usd