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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, in C.C.No.139 of 2002, vide judgment dated 23.12.2004. 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. Briefly, the prosecution case is as follows: On 10.03.2001 the accused came to the house of the complainant P.W.1 and held discussions with her father P.W.2 and agreed for the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1. Subsequently, engagement was held at the house of P.W.2 on 13.04.2001 and the accused attended the engagement along with elders. The accused were paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- as part payment of dowry. On 20.04.2001 P.W.2 again paid Rs.20,000/- to the accused at Adamilli through P.W.3. Later on, P.W.2 approached the accused to fix a date for the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1, but the accused dragged the matter from time to time with their malicious words and on 11.11.2001 A.1 married another girl. On knowing about the same, when P.W.2 approached the accused along with elders and asked them about the cheating and to return the amount paid by him, the accused threatened him with dire consequences. Then, P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the competent Court and the same was forwarded to Tadikalapudi P.S. for investigation and after receipt of the complaint, the police registered Crime No.8 of 2002 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed 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 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were 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. This Court heard both sides and perused the entire record as well as the evidence adduced by the witnesses. 7. Admittedly, P.Ws.3 to 5 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution. Now, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 being daughter and father, they are the interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution and there is no other independent witness to corroborate with their evidence. 8. P.W.1 deposed that at the time of her betrothal ceremony with accused No.1, her father P.W.2 paid Rs.5,000/- to accused No.1, whereas in cross-examination she stated that she could not attend the betrothal ceremony. The evidence of P.W.2 is that at the time of betrothal ceremony of P.W.1 with A.1, he agreed to pay dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- to A.1 and accordingly paid Rs.5,000/- to A.1 and again on the demand of A.1, he paid Rs.20,000/- through P.W.3, whereas in cross-examination he stated that he did not state before the police that he agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to A.1 towards dowry and that A.1 asked him to pay Rs.20,000/-. Further, though P.W.1 deposed that her father P.W.2 paid Rs.5,000/- to A.1 at the time of her betrothal ceremony and thereafter he also paid Rs.20,000/- to A.1 through P.W.3, she did not state that at the time of her betrothal ceremony, P.W.2 agreed to give Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry to A.1. As rightly held by the trial Court, there is no independent witness to speak to the fact that P.W.2 paid Rs.5,000/- to A.1 at the time of betrothal ceremony and thereafter Rs.20,000/- through P.W.3 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not cogent and consistent with each other. 9. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that their evidence is not cogent and consistent with each other and there are material omissions in their evidence and this Court is of the view that absolutely there are no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 23.12.2004, in C.C.No.139 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 29th April, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1047 of 2005 DATE: 29.04.2011 Between : Juvvala Annamma … 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.1047 of 2005 (Dismissed) 29th April, 2011 cbs