THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 OF 2005 DATED 3rd DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Y.Adinarayana .. Petitioner-accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 OF 2005 ORDER: This is a revision arising out of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused by the trial Court and subsequently confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three years, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The prosecution case is as follows: The marriage of L.W.1 Yerramsetty Dhanalaxmi was performed with the accused during the year 1976 and at the time of marriage L.W.2 Chokkakula Subba Rao gave Rs.20,000/- to the accused towards dowry. And A.1, L.W.1 after their marriage blessed with one son and one daughter. Ever since the marriage, the accused and his elder brother’s children used to harass L.W.1 to bring money from her parents and accused used to beat his wife whenever she fails to bring money. Recently on the instigation of Paradesh Ramanamma, Yerramsetti Nagaraju, Yerramsetti Murali and Meesala Radha and the accused intensified harassment and not even coming to the house at Tenali and living at Vijayawada itself by neglecting his wife and children. When L.W.1 approached the accused and asked as to why he is not coming to his house, accused abused her and beat her. Further, she came to know that the accused developed illicit intimacy with Paradesi Ramanamma, who is a co-employee, and both the accused and the Ramanamma knew very well that they were married with other spouses and their intimacy is illegal and adultery. On 01.04.1999 the accused along with Paradesh Ramanamma, Yerramsetti Nagaraju, Yerramsetti Murali and Meesala Radha came to the house of L.W.1 and threatened L.W.1 and L.W.2 with dire consequences, if they questioned their behaviour. So, L.W.1 filed a complaint before the Court. Heard. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.1- complainant and her father P.W.2. The only allegation in the entire evidence adduced by the witnesses is that the petitioner-accused is having some illicit intimacy with Paradesi Ramanamma. Apart from that, nothing is there to attract an offence under Section 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means--- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. In the above referred section, the word ‘cruelty’ is clearly defined. The Act of the petitioner in any manner does not attract the explanation of cruelty defined in the section. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court has to be interfered with and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction imposed against the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Fine amount paid by the petitioner, if any, be returned to him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 03.12.2010 sur