HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.56 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-defacto complainant against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2003, vide judgment dated 18.10.2004. 2. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution, as narrated during the course of trial, is briefly stated as under: Pyla Sreedevi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who was the daughter of P.W.1 defacto complainant, was married with accused No.2 on 13.6.1998. Accused No.1 is father and accused No.3 is brother of A.2. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as dowry, two tulas of gold and household articles were given to the accused. After marriage, the deceased joined A.2 at Visakhapatnam where she lived happily with A.2 for about one and a half year and thereafter the accused started harassing the deceased to get a motor cycle from her parents. When P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased to bring the deceased to celebrate Sankranthi festival, A.1 threatened him not to enter into his house till the scooter was given to them. Subsequently, A.2 met with an accident and when P.W.1 went to the house of the accused to see A.2, there was a quarrel between him and A.2 for not giving the scooter. Thereafter, when the wife of P.W.1 went to the house of the accused to see her daughter, her daughter informed that she could not bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused and she would come to their village with her. Four days after the wife of P.W.2 returning to their village, on coming to know about the death of their daughter, they went to the house of the accused and when questioned about the cause of death of their daughter, they were told that their daughter died of burst of gas cylinder. Upon Ex.P.11 complaint dated 21.07.2002 of the father of the deceased P.W.1, P.W.8, Addl. S.I. of Police, II town (L & O) P.S., Visakhapatnam registered Crime No.218 of 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequently on the basis of Ex.P.1 report dated 24.07.2002 of P.W.1 and after receipt of post mortem report, the section of law was altered to 498-A and 304-B IPC as the death of the deceased took place within seven years of marriage. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 apart from M.Os 1 and 2. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D.1 was marked. 5. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record found the accused not guilty of the offences and, accordingly, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant P.W.1 preferred this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters written by the deceased eloquently speaks about the harassment meted out to her and the learned trial Judge without giving any importance to such letters and though there is clear evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the harassment by the accused, acquitted the accused. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4- accused submitted that the trial Court has considered all the evidence in proper perspective and accordingly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal of the accused. 8. This Court perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced by the witnesses. 9. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.2, who is the independent witness, that accused No.2 and the deceased lived together happily and there were no disputes in between them and further relying on the presumption under Section 304-B IPC which clearly indicates the main ingredient that between the death of the person and the harassment, there should be some proximity of time and such harassment must be soon before the death of that person. Admittedly, Exs.P.2 and P.3 letters as to the harassment were written by the deceased in the year 2000, whereas the death of the deceased had taken place on 20.07.2002. 10. Further, in the earlier complaint Ex.P.11 there is no allegation of harassment or ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by any one of the accused and three days after the death of the deceased, Ex.P.1 report was given by P.W.1 and basing on the said complaint, the section of law was altered to 498-A and 304-B IPC. There is no proper explanation from the prosecution for giving Ex.P.1 complaint belatedly. Till examination of the Investigating Officer P.W.8, the prosecution has not produced Ex.P.11 complaint given by P.W.1 at the earliest point of time and in Ex.P.11 no suspicion is expressed by P.W.1 on any of the accused regarding the death of the deceased. The allegation of harassment regarding balance dowry and for a motor cycle is only made in Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1 four dates after the death of the deceased. Except the evidence of interested witnesses P.Ws.1 and 3, no other evidence is put forth by the prosecution with regard to the harassment by the accused. 11. According to the prosecution, the death of the deceased is suicidal one by hanging and the doctor P.W.7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died of asphyxia due to hanging. 12. It is well settled proposition of law that when two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and when one view is in favour of the accused and the same is appreciated and the accused is acquitted of the offence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. This Court is also convinced with the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge relying on the decisions reported in 1995(1) ALT (Crl.) Page 396, 2003(2) ALT (Crl.) Page 1, 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 80, (S.C.), 2003 Crl.Law Journal 2905 and 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 26 (S.C) 13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 18.10.2004, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 29th April, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.56 of 2005 DATE: 29.04.2011 Between : Kunchada Ramarao … Petitioner/ Defacto complainant and State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderbad and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.56 of 2005 (Dismissed) 29th April, 2011 cbs