THE HON’BEL SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.809 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner/A.1 filed this criminal revision case against the dismissal order dated 27.04.2004 passed by the IX Additional Sessionbs Judge, (FTC) Court, Guntur in Crl.A.No.317 of 2001 confirming the judgment dated 28.06.2001 passed in C.C.No.110 of 2000 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 17.01.2000 A.1 married PW.1 at King George Church, Seetha Nagar, Guntur with the blessings of elders as per the Christian religious customs. After marriage, A.1 and PW.1 led their family life in Thikki Reddy Palem for about three months. Thereafter, A.1 went to Vissannapet along with PW.1, where at the instigation of A.2 and A.3, he harassed PW.1 with an intention to marry the daughter of his elder sister, namely, Madhavi. A.1 demanded PW.1 to bring more dowry for Rs.20,000/- from her parents house. Due to unbearable harassment of A.1, PW.1 went to her parents house and informed her parents and the elders i.e., LWs.2 to 5. Further, PW.1 along with LWs.2 to 5 went to Vissannapet and requested A.1 to admit PW.1 in his life. But A.1 openly challenged PW.1 in the presence of elders that he will not admit PW.1. Then PW.1 went to Police Station and filed a complaint. The police registered the complaint as a case in Crime No.4 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 109 IPC. The police, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.110 of 2000. The trial Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted A.1 and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved by the same A.1 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.317 of 2001 before the IX Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge through the impugned order dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the trial Court. Hence the revision case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 submitted that the marriage of the petitioner and the de facto complainant is a love marriage. They lived happily only for four months. Subsequently, the de fact complainant left the matrimonial home. After four months, she lodged the present complaint before the respondent- police. He further submitted that except making a bald allegation that the petitioner herein demanded dowry of Rs.20,000/-, there is no specific allegation to attract Section 498-A IPC. This Court perused the entire record, the evidence adduced by the parties and also the judgments of both the Courts. As seen from the record, it is evident that PW.1, who is the wife of the petitioner herein, has not stated when the harassment started and when the petitioner demanded money. She also did not state any thing specifically against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Since there is no specific allegation that the harassment is with regard to demand of dowry to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. The petitioner/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not involved in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, shall be refunded to him. _________________ (RAJA ELANGO, J.) 25th June, 2010 Js.