THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1467 OF 2004 Dated: 15-07-2011 Between: G. Venkata Satyanarayana. - - - Petitioner/ P.W.1. And Doredla Venkata Krishna Rao, two others Accused And The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1467 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner-De- facto Complainant (PW.1) against judgment of acquittal dated 24-05- 2004 made in Sessions Case No.130 of 2001, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, whereby the Respondents/Accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of I.P.C. 2. The Petitioner is the de-facto complainant (PW.1) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are A-1 to A-3 in the Sessions Case No.130 of 2001 and the Respondent No.4 herein is the State. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. A-1 to A-3 were prosecuted in the Sessions Case No.130 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 201 of I.P.C. Before the trial Court for the Petitioner/De-facto complainant, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were marked and for the Respondents/Accused DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and EXs.D-1 to D-6 and Material Objects 1 and 2 were marked. After due trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda acquitted the accused under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 304-B and 201 of I.P.C. whereas, challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner/De-facto complainant (PW.1). 4. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : On 20-07-2000 at 06-00 p.m. PW.1 father-in-law of A-1 lodged a complaint alleging that her daughter was given in marriage to A-1 on 20-11-1997 giving Rs.1,00,000/- in cash towards dowry besides household articles worth Rs.50,000/- and for one year, A-1 subjected his daughter to harassment including beating her on trivial issues and on 20-07-2000 at 04-00 p.m. while he was at his shop, his brother Hanumantha Rao (PW.4) came and informed him that his daughter died at her-in-laws house at Bangarigadda,, upon which he immediately rushed and found his daughter lying dead without clothes on her body in the kitchen room of their house with her head and shoulders found burnt, pushte billalu and black beeds of Pusthela thadu got snapped and lying separately, there were also some broken pieces of bangles other than that of his daughter belonging to her mother-in-law (A-3) and as such he suspected that A-1 to A-3 killed her by setting her to fire. Later he gave report on which the case was registered in Crime No.151 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on the file of Miryalaguda P.S. and during the course of the investigation of the case PW.11, S.I. of police Miryalaguda recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and subsequently the body was sent to Government Area Hospital, where medical officers conducted postmortem over the dead body and opined that the cause of death was due to (Asphyxia) followed by burns and as such PW.11 altered the section of law to Section 304-B and arrested the accused and after the completion of the investigation of the case filed charge sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda i.e., the committal Court. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/De-facto complainant that the prosecution proved the charges levelled against A-1 to A-3 in the case and the trial Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the Criminal Revision Case is to be allowed setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded in the Sessions Case No.130 of 2001, dated 24-05-2004, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. 6. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner? 7. It is the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that A-1 to A-3 started harassing the deceased namely Doredla Padmavathi demanding additional dowry from one year prior to the death of the deceased. Whereas according to them A-1 to A-3 harassed the deceased physically and mentally from one year prior to her death. PWs. 3 and 4 stated that after one year from the date of marriage the accused harassed the deceased mentally and physically. Further, PW.2 Stated that at the scene of offence about 200 to 300 persons gathered and PW.3 also stated similarly but none of them acted as mediators and none of them were examined as independent witnesses to the incident. Further, PW.3 stated that the deceased informed her that A-2, A-3 and A-1 beat her but her evidence is only hearsay and PW.4 also deposed accordingly. In Ex.P1, there is no mention that the accused harassed the deceased for additional money. There is also no good evidence to the effect that the accused demanded the accused to pay additional money. There is no sufficient incriminating material to convict the accused and sentence them for the alleged offences and they are entitled for acquittal. 8. After the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the lower Court basing upon the evidence adduced and good reasoning held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the Accused. The de-facto complainant made lot of improvements over the report given by him, in other words, there is no consistency in his report and evidence about the alleged cruelty and demand of additional dowry by the accused, whereas the evidence of other witnesses examined is also not reliable and not corroborating and not acceptable. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.15-07-2011. Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 352 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1467 OF 2004 Date:15.07.2011 Dsh.