THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1916 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto-complainant against the judgment dated 2.9.2004 in C.C.No.247 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 10.5.1999, the de facto complainant-Shaik Karimunnisa married A1 as per their customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant, gave Rs.75,000/- as dowry and presented 9 soverigns of gold as Pasupukunkuma. After their marriage, the de facto complainant and A1 set up their matrimonial house at Sattenapalli town. After 10 days of marriage, A1 and A2 and two others juveniles i.e., sisters of A1, began harassing her to get more dowry and when she refused, all the accused harassed her mentally and physically criticizing that if she dies, on remarriage to A1, they would get Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry. On 27.6.1999, the accused as well as the younger sisters of A1 confined her at their house and tried to extort her gold ornaments. Then, she ran away to the house of L.Ws. 4 and 5 and informed the same. They tried to compromise the matter, but in vain. Then, on 9.7.1999, she gave a report, basing on which, a case in Crime No.114 of 1999 on the file of the Sattenapalli Town P.S., was registered against the accused-A1 and A2. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.247 of 1999. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Court below having observed that there is no evidence to show that the accused demanded the de facto complainant to get additional dowry or to meet any of their unlawful demands and that the incident of cruelty alleged against the accused was not free from discrepancies and therefore, benefit of doubt needs to be exercised, dismissed the C.C. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) filed the present revision. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant that the Court below has failed to consider the material evidence in a proper perspective and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and reliable one, but the Court below has failed to consider the same and therefore, the judgment impugned herein needs interference by this Court. The scope of the revision is very limited. However, it has to be examined as to whether there is any perversity in the findings of the Court below on the question of facts. In the instant case, the de facto complainant was examined as P.w.1. P.ws.2 and 3 who are parents of P.W.1 are not the direct eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have no role to speak anything about the incident except stating the facts as narrated by their daughter, the de facto complainant and as such, much weight cannot be attached to their testimonies. P.ws.4 and 5 are the witnesses who spoke about the incidents alleged to have been committed by the accused on 25.6.1999 and 27.6.1999. In this regard, the investigating officer has deposed that these witnesses did not state before him with regard to the said two incidents. If really, those incidents had occurred, P.Ws.4 & 5 would not have omitted to state before the police and their omission before the police in 161 Cr.P.C statements goes a long way to infer against their evidence. Their evidence also does not focus any light over the incidents so as to attach any weight to their testimonies. A perusal of the evidence of P.ws.4 and 5 with regard to the incidents in question and with regard to their silence in reacting to the incidents as informed by the defacto complainant makes it clear that it appears to be far from truth as rightly observed by the Court below. In the absence of substantial evidence as to the alleged harassment and the overt acts of the accused and in view of the delay in lodging Ex.P1 report, the Court below has rightly thrown away the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the judgment impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and therefore, the revision case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1916 of 2004 24.3.2011