HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2466 OF 2004 Date: 17-08-2011 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. --- Appellant/ Complainant. Ands Sk. Khaja Mohiddin. --- Respondent/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2466 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this Appeal against acquittal of the accused/respondent of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. There is no dispute about the marriage between PW.2 and the accused on 19-10-1990 at Peramana village of Sangam Mandal. The accused was studying M.B.B.S course at Tirupati. It is alleged that though the Accused expected huge dowry from parents of PW.2, small amount of dowry was given to him and the accused felt hurt for the same and used to harass and ill-treat PW.2 physically and mentally for additional dowry. Admittedly even after marriage, PW.2 was kept in her parents’ house as the accused was in studies at Tirupathi; and the accused used to visit PW.2 in her parents’ house now and then. It is further alleged that the accused developed illicit intimacy with another woman who is co-medico; and that when PW.1 who is brother of PW.2 enquired about it at Tirupathi Medical College, the accused felt insulted and stopped going to the house of PW.2’s parents. In the meanwhile, PW.2 got conductor job at Venkatagiri Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Thereupon the accused filed Ex.P-3 divorce petition on 14-12-1997 before Khaji, Nellore and pronounced Talaq to PW.2 and sent two demand drafts for Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,135/- towards Meher amount and Iddat amount. Subsequent to filing of the divorce petition and pronouncement of divorce, PW.1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police of II Town police station, Kavali in the year 1998. Ex.P-9 is registered F.I.R. in this case. 2. During trial in the lower Court, Khaji was examined as PW.6, parents of PW.2 were examined as PWs. 4 and 5, PW.3 is stated to be a friend of PW.5. The victim girl/PW.2 did not give any report to the police in this case. Ex.P-1 report was given by PW.2’s brother who is PW.1. Mainly the evidence of prosecution witnesses is against the accused developing illicit intimacy with the colleague medico and stopping his visits to PW.2 at her parents’ house. In the midst of the said allegation, the alleged demand for more dowry went into the background. The lower Court pointed out that PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 admitted that the accused did not demand any dowry. The lower Court also pointed out that in Ex.P-5 reply notice PW.2 did not mention about the accused demanding any dowry before the marriage and about her parents giving any dowry to him. Accordingly, the lower Court rightly did not believe the allegation regarding demand of additional dowry in this case. The lower Court gave proper reasons for acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. There are no grounds in this Appeal to interfere with the said finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 17-08-2011. B/o.DSH.