HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 724 OF 2004 DATED 18TH JUNE, 2010. BETWEEN Auragani Narsa Goud …..Petitioner/Accused No.1 And State of AP Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP. ….Respondent/Complainant HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA. ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 724 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 13.4.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2000 whereby the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, NIzamabad, conﬁrmed the conviction imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and reduced the sentence inﬂicted by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in the order dated 16.10.2000 passed in C.C.No. 135 of 1999 from six months to three months. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 married the defacto complainant on 31.5.1998 and at the time of marriage, some dowry was given by the parents of the defacto complainant. After the marriage, the defacto complainant lived with the petitioner/accused No.1 happily for one month, subsequently there was a demand of additional dowry by the petitioner/Accused No.1. The only point that required to be decided in this petition is, whether the evidence of defacto complainant inspires conﬁdence of this Court which attract the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation in the entire evidence adduced by the defacto complainant is with regard to demand of additional dowry by the petitioner/accused No.1 from the parents of the defacto complainant, whereas in Ex.P.1 complainant lodged before the police or in the statement recorded by the police, no where the defacto complainant has stated anything regarding the demand of additional dowry. Except the said allegation, there is no other serious allegation to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A of IPC. The present evidence adduced by the defacto complainant with regard to demand of additional dowry is of new improvement in the case at the time of trial and the said improvement prejudiced the petitioner herein. It also shows that it is an afterthought of the defacto complainant. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court and conﬁrmed by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be returned to him. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 18TH JUNE, 2010. Msnr.