THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.A.No.1463 of 2010 JUDGMENT Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet in C.C.No.374 of 2004, dated 22.12.2006, the appellant-State filed the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 14.03.2001 at 2.00 PM, the marriage of de facto complainant-Md.Rasheeda Begum was performed with A1 at Nemmikal Village and at the time of marriage, her parents gave a sum of Rs.50,000/-besides household articles to A1 towards dowry. Since she had no issues, A1 along with the other accused harassed her mentally and physically for want of more dowry, beat her indiscriminately and driven out her from their house. On the basis of the report given by the victim-P.W.1, a case in Crime No.75 of 2003 of Police Station, Athmakur, was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondents/accused not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly, acquitted them. Hence, this appeal by the appellant-State. 5. Heard. 6. P.W.1 is the wife of A1, at whose instance, the law was set in motion. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents and P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.1. P.Ws.5, 6 and 7, who are the alleged eyewitnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. No doubt, P.Ws.1 to 4 had categorically stated about the harassment meted out by P.W.1 at the hands of the respondents/accused, but that alone is not sufficient to hold the respondents guilty of the offences with which they were charged. In a case of this nature, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has to establish the case by bringing some independent and corroborating evidence. P.Ws.5,6 and 7, who are the alleged independent eyewitnesses, as stated supra, did not support the case of the prosecution. On the ground of interestedness alone, the case of the prosecution need not be thrown out. From a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is clear that for the reasons best known to them, a false case has been foisted as if the respondents have committed the offences for which they were tried. Taking into the said aspects into consideration, the trial Court found the respondents/accused not guilty of the said offences. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgment impugned. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:30.11.2010 sj