HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto complainant questioning the acquittal of the accused, respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, vide judgment in S.C. No.96 of 2003 dated 02-07-2004 for the offences under Sections 307, 498-A read with 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “DP Act”). 2. Accused Nos.1 to 5, who are husband and other kith and kin of the de facto complainant – PW.1, were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 307, 498-A read with 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act. 3. Charge sheet was filed by the police, according to which, PW.1 was married to accused No.1 on 12-07-1998 at Kurnool. Some dowry was given to the accused apart from jahez articles. After the marriage, spouses lived happily for about a month and thereafter accused No.1 went to Saudi Arabia for livelihood and returned to India in 1999 and lived with PW.1 for some days and again went to Saudi Arabia. On 16-03-2000, PW.1 gave birth to a female child. While, accused No.1 left to Saudi Arabia, he left PW.1 with his parents, accused Nos.2 and 3, who started harassing her demanding additional dowry. PW.1 informed the same to her parents. Nazeer Ahmed, father of PW.1, gave Rs.95,000/- to accused No.2 on 08-10-1998, Rs.30,000/- on 29-10-1998 and Rs.10,000/- on 04-12-1998. Further, he gave Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 on 26-12-1999, Rs.15,000/- on 07-04-1999 and Rs.50,000/- on 16-01-2001. Still, accused No.2 and the other accused were harassing PW.1 for additional dowry. In the meanwhile, accused No.1 returned from Saudi Arabia and on 24-09- 2002, there was a panchayath in the presence of the elders, where accused Nos.1 to 5 promised to lookafter PW.1 well and took her to their house. But, on 16-10-2002 at about 8-00 PM, all the accused beat PW.1, accused Nos.3 to 5 caught her, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and accused No.2 tried to lit fire with match stick with an intention to kill her and when she made hue and cry, her younger brother Jameel Ahmed came to the scene and rescued her. On a complaint given, a case was registered in Crime No.206 of 2002 by IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A & 307 read with 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the DP Act. 4. For the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A & 307 read with 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the DP Act, they pleaded not guilty. 5. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D-1 & D-2 were marked. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating material against them appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found all the accused not guilty of the offences alleged against them holding that the case is not proved against them and accordingly acquitted them of the same. Aggrieved of the same, the de facto complainant - PW.1 filed this revision. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision ? 9. Heard the learned counsel for the de facto complainant (PW.1) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 5 – respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein Sri K. Somakonda Reddy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. There is no dispute that PW.1 and accused No.1 are spouses and the other accused are kith and kin of accused No.1. 11. The question is whether the accused demanded additional dowry and harassed PW.1 for that purpose. 12. To prove the demand of additional dowry and receiving the same, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5. 13. PWs.2 and 3 deposed that both of them and an other person have acted as elders for the marriage of PW.1 with accused No.1, but they admitted that they have not acted as witnesses for nikhanama. They have not stated about demand of dowry etc., by the accused. 14. PW.2 stated that father of PW.1 paid Rs.95,000/- to accused No.2 on one occasion and Rs.30,000/- on another occasion. He also spoke about several other amounts being paid by the father of PW.1 to accused No.2, but he did not speak about presence of PW.3 at the time of payment of these amounts. PW.3 also spoke about payment of certain amount, but he too did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the time of payment. Further, PWs.2 and 3 are not the residents of the locality of the father of PW.1, they admitted that they are friends of PW.1. PW.2 has stated that father of PW.1 has noted the payments in a notebook, but that book is not produced. Thus, on account of PWs.2 and 3 not speaking about the presence of the other one at the time of payment of the amounts by the father of PW.1 to accused No.2 and on account of their friendship with him, their evidence becomes doubtful. 15. PW.5, an other independent witness, who supported the case of the prosecution with regard to payment of additional dowry, is shown to be having enmity with the family of the accused, as such, the trial Court rightly not relied on the evidence of this witness. 16. The evidence of PW.1, the de facto complainant, is that all the accused harassed her and accused No.1 threatened to give talak. As her evidence is not supported by any other material and there are inconsistencies in her evidence, the trial Court held that it is not safe to accept her evidence to convict the accused. 17. Further, for the offence under Section 307 IPC, absolutely there is no material. In case, as deposed by PW.1, the accused tried to kill PW.1 by setting fire to her, when, actually, accused No.1 sprinkled kerosene on her and accused No.2 was about to set fire to her, there was absolutely no possibility for her to escape, in case really such thing has taken place. When the witness (PW.1) has gone to the extent of giving such kind of evidence, it cannot be accepted prima facie, as her evidence is inconsistent and uncorroborated. 18. In the circumstances, the trial Court rightly found all the accused not guilty of the offences alleged against them and accordingly acquitted them of the same and I see no grounds to interfere with the same, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 17, 2010. PV