HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.809 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision is preferred by the de facto complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No. 213 of 2001, dated 10.10.2002, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 2. It is the case of the de facto complainant that A.1, at the instigation of A.2, mother of A.1, and A.3, sister of A.1, used to harass her both physically and mentally; A.1 demanded her to bring Rs.50,000/- from the retiral benefits of her mother; and as she failed to bring the said amount, she was necked out. Hence, the de facto complainant, who was examined as PW.1, gave Ex.P.1 report to the police and a case in Crime No.73 of 2001 was registered by the Gujuwaka Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.213 of 2001 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence and got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2. 4. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and, accordingly, acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence of PW.1, the de facto complainant, in proper perspective regarding the harassment meted out to her by the accused, and also the evidence adduced by PWs.2 to 4. 6. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the evidence on record, detailed the reasons for acquittal of the accused in para 8 of the judgment under revision, which runs as under: “Hence, from the above evidence of prosecution witnesses and from the admission made by PWs.1 to 3, it is clear that no particular date of harassment by demanding to bring additional dowry amount or any amount was deposed by the prosecution witnesses. As per the evidence of PW.1 herself, it is clear that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. Even though PW.1 deposed that A.1 demanded her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents’ house, as no dowry was given at the time of marriage, the same was not mentioned either in Ex.P.1 or in her statement before the police. There is no corroboration with regard to the separation of PW.1 and A.1 prior to the date of Ex.P.1 in between the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As per PW.4 by the date of Ex.P.1, PW.1 is residing at the house of A.1 and whereas PW.3, servant maid, deposed that two years prior to the date of Ex.P.1 itself, PW.1 is residing separately from the house of the accused. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is clear that A.2 and A.3 are residing separately. None of the independent witnesses deposed that A.1 to A.3 harassed PW.1 by subjecting her to cruelty by demanding to bring additional dowry amount or anything. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.” 7. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the allegations made by PW.1 are bald and vague in nature. She had not stated any particular incident of harassment by any of the accused and had simply deposed regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry by A.1. However, the said demand of Rs.50,000/- was not stated either in the complaint or before the Investigating Officer. Hence, it is nothing but an improvement to her case, which amounts to contradiction to her earlier statement, and not a material omission. 8. The learned Magistrate, considering the facts and circumstances, acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under revision. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. RAJA ELANGO,J Date 09.12.2010 usd