THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1448 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.30 of 2000 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty on 28.04.2003. The respondents who are accused Nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC alleging that P.W.1 fell in love with accused No.1 and they decided to marry with the support of elders. Accordingly their marriage was performed on 04.03.2001 at Kaluvagadda Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Gooty. After the marriage, accused No.1 lived with her for a period of 2 months. Later accused No.1 refused to keep her in their house and demanded dowry from her parents and also threatened that she would not be allowed to their house until and unless she fulfill his demand. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also harassed her and they also not allowed P.W.1 to live with her husband, accused No.1. On the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.5 has registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2001 under Section 498-A IPC. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused. The learned Magistrate has framed the charges under Section 498-A IPC against all the accused. They pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.D.1. The learned Magistrate by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found all the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 498-A IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: According to the prosecution, the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1 is a love marriage and it was performed with the help of village elders on 04.03.2001 at Kaluva Gadda Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Gooty. After the marriage, she lived with accused No.1 for 2 months. Thereafter, accused No.1 refused to live along with her and demanded to get dowry from her parents and sent her out of his house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also not allowed P.W.1 to live with her husband, accused No.1. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 establishes the harassment caused by the accused towards P.W.1 for getting additional dowry and not allowed her to stay along with accused No.1 and thereby the offence under Section 498-A IPC was established against the accused. The complainant, P.W.1 has stated that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed by the village elders on 04.03.2001 at Kaluvagadda Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Gooty. After the marriage she went to her parents’ house and after one week she went to her in-laws house, but accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing and demanding dowry, even though she stayed with accused No.1 for 2 months in her in-laws house. Accused No.1 used to come to home in drunken condition and used to beat her. On one day, he dropped her at her parents’ house and asked her to bring money and otherwise he would not allow her into his house. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also came to her house for 5 times and informed her to bring dowry. After some days, accused No.1 was disappeared and she thought that accused Nos.2 and 3 had kept accused No.1 somewhere else as accused No.1 was not appeared in the village. She waited for accused No.1 and as there is no alternative, she reported the matter to Peddavaduguru police. Accused No.1 is her brother-in-law by courtesy. Ex.P.1 is the report given by her. In the complaint Ex.P.1, she has stated that accused No.1 has not taken her to his house after marriage demanding for dowry. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also demanded for dowry and requested to take action. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, prosecution has examined P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 is brother of P.W.1. He only stated about performing of accused No.1’s marriage with P.W.1 by the village elders. After marriage, P.W.1 and accused No.1 lived in their house for 5 days. Thereafter, accused No.1 took her to their house and on the next day itself accused Nos. 1 to 3 started demanding dowry. P.W.1 informed him about the demand for dowry by the accused and he informed the same to village elders. On which, the village elders questioned accused Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, accused No.1 was not seen in the village. P.W.3, who is resident of Veerannapalli village, has also stated about the performing of marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1 by the village elders. Their marriage is love marriage and they stayed in the house of P.W.1 for one week, later they went to the house of accused No.1. They lived happily for 2 months. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded P.W.1 to get dowry. After some days, accused No.1 was not seen in the village. P.W.4, who is resident of Veerannapalli, also supported the version of P.W.3. P.W.5, Investigating Officer has only filed the charge sheet after recording the statements of witnesses. Therefore, as per the evidence it is established that the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1 is a love marriage and they lived together for 2 months in the house of accused No.1. According to P.W.1, she was harassed by the accused to get dowry from her parents and sent her to her parents’ house. She also admitted that accused No.1 was disappeared from the village. In the cross- examination, she admitted about the accused No.1 filing O.P.No.65 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty for divorce. She also admitted that on 06.09.2001 she engaged an advocate in the said O.P. She also admitted that she has filed a petition in M.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court for claiming maintenance and thereafter, she has filed the present complaint. Therefore, it is evident that only after accused No.1 has filed the O.P. for divorce, she has filed the present complaint. Prior to that, there is no complaint given by her either to the police or to the villagers with regard to the demand made by the accused for dowry. Moreover, P.Ws.2 to 4 are not eyewitnesses to the demand made by the accused for dowry and they were only informed by P.W.1 with regard to demand made by the accused. Therefore, in the circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the sole evidence of P.W.1 to establish the demand for dowry and harassment caused by the accused. Thus, the prosecution could not establish the charge under Section 498-A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the lower Court is justified in acquitting the accused. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 22nd September, 2011 Ksp