HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1431 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment delivered by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 921 of 1995, dated 4.6.1999, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate acquitted A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage between the defacto complainant, Smt. Azmathunniza Begum and A1 in the case took place on 10.4.1992 at Yakootpura, Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant promised to pay Rs.1,20,000/- towards dowry, but gave Rs.20,000/- in cash, 6 tolas of gold ornaments, silver and a scooter, besides some jahez articles to A1. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children and they lived happily till January, 1995 and thereafter, A1 started harassing and ill treating the defacto complainant for additional dowry. Then she went to her parents house and collected an amount of Rs.50,000/- with much difficulty and she handed over the said amount to A1 in the presence of her maternal uncle, M.A. Gaffar on 19.2.1995, and then she was allowed to live in their house. Thereafter, A1 to A8 again, started harassing her for bringing the remaining dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- and when she informed her husband and in-laws that her parents were not in a position to fulfil their illegal demands, they drove her out along with the children. Later, they came to know that A1 left for Dubai and then her parents requested her in-laws to allow her to live with them, which, they refused and asked them to pay the remaining amount of dowry. Then, the defacto complainant filed private complaint, basing on which, the case was registered in Crime No. 43 of 1995. On the completion of the investigation of the case, police filed charge sheet. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs. P1 to P13. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was let in, however, Exs. D1 to D3 were marked. On analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 in the case of the offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the present revision. P.W.1 in her chief examination deposed that on 8.3.95, A1 beat her and drove her out of the house along with her children, but in her cross- examination, she deposed that when her parents went to her in-laws’ house on the same day, they came to know that he left India. Further she deposed that A4 had not been in India since 1994 which falsifies that he also harassed her after 1994. It is important that according to the prosecution A1 to A8 harassed her during 1995 only. As per the defence, from 20.2.1995 i.e., the date of Ex.P9, agreement between her and A1, she lived in the in-laws’ house and A1 pronounced talaq prior to the filing of the complaint in the case. Further she deposed that on 19.2.1995, her father gave the amount of Rs.50,000/- and obtained stamp paper to that effect, but there is no such stamp paper. Further as per Ex.P9, there was settlement that she should stay in the house of her parents looking after the children receiving Rs.2000/- from A1 towards maintenance every month and she should withdraw complaint against A1. She admitted that Ex.P9 contains her signature. Ex.P9 disproves her total claim therefore. Her evidence is not trust worthy and hence not acceptable. The trial Court properly examined the matter. So the revision fails. In the result, it is dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 19.7.2011 pnb