THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.910 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1. This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment made in C.C.No.216 of 2001 dated 27.8.2003 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda district acquitting the respondents 1 and 2/accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The case of the prosecution is as follows: 2. The marriage of A1 with P.W.1 in the case namely Rehana Amreen took place on 29.10.1999 at Tanuku, West Godavari district. Then her parents gave Rs.60,000/- as dowry to the accused apart from giving 7½ tolas gold and other articles and later the accused harassed P.W.1 physically and mentally for additional dowry. 3. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On behalf of the accused, he got himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, after the consideration of the matter, held that there was no proof that the accused used to demand P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and harassed her and independent evidence of any neighbour was adduced and hence, the prosecution failed to bring home guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt i.e. found the accused not guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A and acquitted them, whereas questioning the judgment, the defacto-complainant filed the present revision. 4. Though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for orders, no representation is made on behalf of both the parties. 5. The point for consideration is whether the Court below properly examined the evidence adduced and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the judgment passed by it is tenable or not. I have gone through the record. 6. P.W.1-the defacto complainant deposed that after her marriage with A1 they lived together for some time and then A1 along with his mother i.e. A2 started harassing her including abusing her using bad language on the pretext that she brought meagre dowry and after she (P.W.1) delivered child in the house of her parents, A1 came and took away the child and did not return back the child for 2 hours and on 12.4.2001 during midnight A1 put up a belt across her neck and pulled her and beat her and threatened of going for second marriage for himself which was supported by A2 and on the next day P.W.4 came along with P.W.5 i.e. sister of her (P.W.1) and enquired about the matter and then A1 stabbed P.W.5 with a knife and on a report given, the case was registered for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC concerned Cr.No.262/01. P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed similarly. It is contended that the facts narrated except about the registration of the said case are not found in the complaint and further that case ended in the acquittal of A1 and hence the same facts cannot be taken into consideration about which there is no dispute, hence the same aspects cannot be considered. Further, Ex.P2 is Nikhanama, Ex.P3 is a document which shows payment of dowry and Exs.P4 to P14 are photographs which do not provide any incriminating material against A1 and A2. Therefore, there is no basis to establish the guilty of A1 and A2 for the charge. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Court below and therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 15.6.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.910 of 2004 15.6.2011