IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.R.C.NO.910 OF 2009. Date:02.11.2009. Between:- Kamuni Sailaja ..Petitioner/Defacto complainant And Kamuni Bixapathi and others .. Respondents/Respondents ORDER:- This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 26.03.2009 passed in C.C.No.907 of 2006 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found A-1 to A-7 not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted them accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1 was married to A-1 on 28.05.2005 at her parents’ house at Kusumanchi as per Hindu rites and customs. It is her version that her parents agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and out of which, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid to the accused on the date of engagement and further sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid on the date of marriage to the accused towards dowry apart from five tulas of gold presented to her. After the marriage, she joined with A-1 for marital life. Two months there after, the respondents/accused harassed her to bring balance dowry amount of Rs.40,000/- besides additional dowry of Rs.60,000/-. A panchayat was held, which has been mediated by P.Ws.3 to 7. Pursuant to the panchayat, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by P.W.2 and the same came to be invested in fixed deposit in the name of P.W.1. It is also the version of the prosecution that the accused compelled P.W.1 to do job and thereupon, P.W.1 succumbed to pressure, joined as a nurse in Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam. P.W.1, being not able to bear the harassment, came out from the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. She presented a report before the police, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.56 of 2006 on 13.06.2006 by the Station House Officer, Kusumanahi Police Station for the offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, the crime came to be transferred to Crime No.75 of 2006 of I town Police Station, Khammam. The Station House Officer, Khammam I Town Police Station re-registered the case as Crime No.75 of 2006 and issued Ex.P-3-First Information Report. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Khammam. 3. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.907 of 2006. 4. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing documents to them, the learned Magistrate examined them under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The learned Magistrate read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused for which they stood charged, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. The plea of the accused is of total denial of the case. 7. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, acquitted them, by Judgment dated 26.03.2009. Hence, this revision by P.W.1- defacto complainant, who has been examined as P.W.1. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defacto complainant and perused the Judgment impugned in the Revision. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent with regard to the dowry demands made by the accused and therefore, the accused are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A further submission has been made that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, recorded acquittal of the respondents for the offences with which they stood charged. 10. In a revision against acquittal, the revisional Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is possible, revisional Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court as erroneous. 11. I have gone through the Judgment impugned in the Revision. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.W.2 is her father. P.W.1 stated before the Court that her parents paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- at the time of marriage and Rs.70,000/- on the date of engagement, apart from presenting five tulas of gold. But in her complaint, which has been exhibited as Ex.P-1, she stated that her parents paid an amount of Rs.18,000/-. There is no consistency with regard to the quantum of amount paid by the parents of P.W.1 to the accused towards dowry. So also there is no consistency in the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the quantum of dowry paid at the time of marriage. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, a settlement was made in the Panchayat and in pursuance of the settlement arrived at the Panchayat, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by P.W.1 to the accused. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the said amount has been invested in her name in fixed deposit, but for the reasons best known to herself, she did not choose to produce the fixed deposit receipt to support her version with regard to the settlement arrived at before the elders. The trial Court considered the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the quantum of amount and also other material facts and thereby, proceeded to discard their testimony. 12. Para No.23 of the Judgment of the trial Court is to be noted, which reads as under: “In support of her contention as stated in her complaint, she herself examined as P.W.1. As per seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she stated that her parents paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- at the time of marriage and an amount of Rs.70,000/- was given to the accused on the date of engagement and the parents also presented 5 tulas of gold to her. In her chief examination, she did not state that their parents agreed to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards dowry to A1 at the time of marriage. In her complaint, she stated that her parents paid an amount of Rs.18,000/-. Where as in her chief examination she stated that her parents paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-. For this contradiction, there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution. Father of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2. He did not speak anything regarding the payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.18,000/- to A.1 after the marriage. But P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that balance dowry amount of Rs.40,000/- was fixed in the name of P.W.1 by way of F.D.R., after the marriage on the demand of accused, though, all the prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that the said F.I.R., with P.W.1. The prosecution did not take any steps to produce even the Xerox copy of F.D.R., before this court to prove the case of the complainant. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence before the court to show on the demand of accused, the parents of P.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.2 lakhs cash towards dowry and 5 tulas of gold and accordingly, they have paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- at the time of marriage and an amount of Rs.90,000/- at the time of marriage. All the prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that there is no documentary evidence i.e., even a photograph, to show thtat the parents of P.W.1 presented dowry to the accused. Even though, all the prosecution witnesses categorically deposed that an amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited in the name of P.W.1 by way of F.D.R., the prosecution did not take any steps to produce bank account of P.W.1 or even the Xerox copy of F.D.R., before this court. So, the allegation of the P.W.1 that the accused has taken dowry and demanded for additional dowry and received additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- is remained un-proved. As per the version of P.W.1, she led happy marital life for 2 months. In his chief examination, she stated that the accused refused to hand over her educational certificates. In the cross examination, she admitted that she did not take such plea in her complaint or in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement. As seen from complaint and 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1, there is no whisper regarding refusal of accused to hand over educational certificates of P.W.1. The main allegation against the accused according to the contents of the complaint of the victim, as her parents failed to pay balance amount of Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.2 lakhs, the accused are used to demand for payment of balance amount of dowry of Rs.40,000/- and additional dowry amount of Rs.60,000/-. On that ground only, she alleged that she was beaten by the accused. Admittedly, P.W.1 is only present at the time of alleged harassment by the accused. P.W.2, who is father of P.W.1 categorically deposed in his evidence that he was not eye-witness for the harassment meted out by her daughter in the hands of the accused. The prosecution examined P.Ws.3 to 7. As per the version of the prosecution, they held panchayat. They were acted as elders in the panchayat to settle the disputes between accused and P.W.1. Out of them, P.W.5 not supported the case of the prosecution. He turned hostile. As per seen from the evidence of P.W.3, though, he has stated in his evidence that he was acted as an elder in his chief examination to settle the disputes between P.W.1 and accused, in his cross examination, he stated that he never acted as elder at the time of panchayat. In the cross examination he also deposed that he was not present at the time of giving dowry amount to A.1. He further deposed that he never visited the house of accused at Parsibandham. According to the evidence of P.W.4 also, he is not eye-witness for the occurrence. He came to know about the alleged harassment through P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.4 further deposed that he never visited the house of A.1. He does not know whether the parents and sisters of A.1 are living together and he further deposed that he came to know about the family affairs of P.W.1 through P.W.1 and her parents. He further deposed that he was not present when the accused demanded additional dowry and he does not know whether any settlement with the accused, held panchayat and he never acted as panchayat elder and he never attested on any document. Even P.W.6 also deposed that he came to know about the family affairs of P.W.1 and A.1 through P.W.1 and her parents. He further deposed that he never acted as elder at any panchayat and no panchayat was held in his presence to settle their disputes. P.W.7 also categorically deposed that he came to know about the harassment of accused through P.W.1 and his father. He further admitted that he never stated before the police that at the time of settlement, elders noticed wrong on the part of the accused. There is no corroboration in between the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7. As per the case of the prosecution, the main allegation against the accused that they harassed P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry and for payment of balance of additional dowry of Rs.40,000/-, for which, the prosecution utterly failed to produce reliable or any documentary evidence to show that the parents of P.W.1 presented dowry to the accused on the date of marriage. On the other hand, though, all the witnesses categorically deposed that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was deposited in the name of P.W.1, by way of F.D.R., no proof of documents filed before the court. Regarding physical harassment meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of accused, admittedly, she herself is witness for the occurrence. The remaining prosecution witnesses came to know through her. The prosecution failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused and failed to establish the ingredients of Sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Under the circumstances of the case, I find the accused are not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.” 13. The trial Court, on thorough appreciation of the evidence brought on record, and by giving cogent and convincing evidence, refused to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. I do not see any flaw in the appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the trial Court. Therefore, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 2nd November, 2009 AMD