THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2008 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1893 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: The appeal is filed by the Public Prosecutor and the revision case is filed by the de facto complainant against acquittal of A1 to A4 by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Ongole in C.C.No.445 of 2004 by judgment dated 2-11-2006 for the charges under Sections 498-A IPC and 3,4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is prosecution case that marriage of the victim/PW1 was performed with A1 on 19-4-2000 and that at the time of marriage, PW1’s parents gave dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and that subsequently, A1 obtained job in an aided post by paying donation of Rs.2,00,000/- and that since then, A1 to A4 started harassing PW1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents and that on 5-10-2004, A1 to A4 beat PW1 and necked her out of their house and that PW1 went to her parents’ house. Plea of A1 to A4 is one of not guilty. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. A2 is mother, A3 is father and A4 is maternal grand mother of A1. Marriage of A1 with PW1 is not in dispute. During trial in the lower Court, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW1 is the victim/ de facto complainant. On Ex.P1 report given by PW1, PW4, who is the Police Officer, registered the same and issued Ex.P3 FIR. PW4 investigated into the offence. PW2 is father of PW1. PW3 who is stated to be tenant, turned hostile to the prosecution. He denied Ex.P2 statement said to have been given by him before the police during investigation. After assessing evidence of PW1 and 2, the lower Court did not find favour with the prosecution case. The prosecution could not produce any independent evidence with regard to receipt of dowry and gold ornaments at the time of marriage. As per PW2’s evidence, he went to Koppulu Village and took away his daughter PW1. Therefore, the lower Court found that it is not a case of the accsed necking out PW1 from the family house demanding additional dowry. It appears that due to certain differences between PW1 and family of the accused, PW2 went and brought PW1 to his house. Sri I.Nagesh, Advocate for the revision petitioner/ de facto complainant stated before this Court that subsequent to the decision of the lower Court, the de facto complainant/PW1 joined A1 and that both of them are now living amicably with each other and that therefore, the de facto complainant is not interested to pursue the revision case. Apart from the evidence on record, which was assessed by the Court below, in view of the subsequent event of re-union between PW1 and A1, I am of the opinion that due to certain hiccups between the couple both of them separated from each other and it is not a case of a dowry harassment. In the result, the appeal as well as the revision case are dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Rkk Dated: 25-1-2011