HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1411 OF 2004 Date: 13-07-2011 Between: Jakki Upendra. - - - Petitioner/ De- facto Complainant. Versus Jakki Venkanna and 14 others And The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1411 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- PW.1 (De-facto complainant) against judgment of acquittal, dated 08-11-2000, rendered in Calender Case No.660 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. 2. The Petitioner is PW.1 and the Respondents Nos.1 to 15 are the Accused Nos.1 to 15 in the Calender Case No.660 of 1995 whereas, the Respondent No.16 is the State. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The Accused No.1 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC, the Accused Nos.2 and 3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and the Accused Nos.4 to 15 were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. respectively, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. At the time of trial, A-14 was reported to be died and hence the case against him was abated by the order of the Court on 13-02-1999 and after due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, acquitted the Accused Nos.1 to 13 and 15 under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences for which they were charged vide judgment, dated 08-11-2000 and challenging the same, the Petitioner-PW.1 (De-facto complainant) has preferred this Revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-PW.1 and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-Accused Nos.1 to 15. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution placed satisfactory evidence with regards to the question of harassing the de-facto complainant namely Jakki Upendra wife of the first of them and also about the question of A-1 contracting second marriage but the lower Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and accordingly the acquittal recorded by the lower Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. are to be set aside and necessary further measures are to be taken. 5. Therefore, the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence with regards to the harassment of the de- facto complainant by the Accused punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 read with Section 109 of I.P.C.? 2) Whether the lower Court examined the matter properly and the acquittal recorded by the Court below is sustainable are not? 6. PWs.1 and 3 who are the de-facto complainant and her mother deposed with regards to the harassment of the first of them by the accused. But PW.3 deposed that PW.1 stayed in their house for three and half years prior to the filing of the case. It is quite unnatural that she waited for such a long time for taking necessary action in the matter against the accused. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the evidence of PW.s 1 and 3 about the harassment of the first of them by the accused and the prosecution claim. Hence, charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. goes. 7. With regards to the question of second marriage of A-1 with A-9, the evidence of PWs. 3 to 8 who are the mother of de-facto complainant, person who acted as elder in a panchayat and eye witnesses to the incident of second marriage is to be taken into consideration. PWs.3 and 5 to 8 deposed that they attended the second marriage and witnessed it. But as per Exs.D-3 to D-5 and Ex.P-2 on 03-02-1995 itself they came to know that A-1 already contracted second marriage with A-9. They denied that accordingly, they stated to the police, whereas, the investigation of PW.11 asserted that accordingly they stated to him. Therefore, they made improvements over their earlier versions. The evidence of PW.8 also shows that PW.2 also attended the marriage, whereas, as per Ex.P-2, PW.2 stated to the police that they came to know about the marriage later. Hence, the evidence of the said witnesses is doubtful and leaving that apart, there is no incriminating material against the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. 8. As seen from the record, it is clear that the lower Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides and after going through the evidence adduced properly observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and rightly acquitted the accused. 9. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the Judgement passed by the lower Court and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgement passed in Calender Case No.660 of 1995, dated 08-11-2000 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 13h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 198 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1411 OF 2004 July, 13, 2011 DSH