HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 1812 of 2003 and Crl.A.No. 1386 of 2004 Date: 05-07-2010 Between: Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ………….. Appellant And Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 1812 of 2003 and Crl.A.No. 1386 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: The Revision Case is preferred by the defacto complainant and the Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 25-08-2003 in C.C.No.415 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Since the Revision Case and the Appeal arise out of the same Judgment, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that A-1 is the husband, A- 2 and A-3 are the parents-in-law, A-4 and A-6 are the sisters-in-law of the defacto complainant, A-5 is the husband of A-4 and A-8 is the grand father of A-1. A-7 died during the pendency of the C.C. and the case against him is abated. The marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with A-1 on 09- 12-1994 at Warangal as per Hindu rites and their caste customs. At the time of marriage, the father of the defacto complainant gave Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry besides gold jewels, furniture etc. to A-1. During their wedlock two sons were born. After the birth of the children, A-1 felt that the amount brought by the defacto complainant is not sufficient and the other Accused also supported his feelings. Hence, all the Accused started harassing, teasing and humiliating the defacto complainant and subjected her to cruelty without valid reasons and demanded her to bring more money from her parents, for which she refused. A-2 to A-8 harassed the defacto complainant forcing her to give divorce to A-1 as they wanted to perform the marriage of A-1 with some other girl. Subsequently on 08-11-1998, A-1 beat the defacto complainant with hands and caused injuries and the same was witnessed by neighbours. Being unable to bear with the harassment of the Accused, the defacto complaiant along with her parents went to the police station on 26-11- 2008 at 11-00 PM and gave Ex.P-1, report, basing upon which a crime was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and after completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet. The Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the Accused, examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. On defence side, no witnesses were examined, however, Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. The lower Court, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, found A-1 to A-6 and A-8, who are respondents 1 to 7 herein, not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and also found A-1 not guilty of the offence under Section 323 of IPC, and accordingly, they were acquitted. 4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the lower Court has not evaluated the evidence of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW-1, in proper perspective and decided the issue against her. 5. The learned counsel for the Accused/Respondent submitted that even though the alleged incident occurred on 08-11-1998, the complaint was lodged only on 26-11-1998 after consultation of a lawyer and the same was accepted by PW-1 in her cross-examination. 6. This Court perused the entire record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The lower Court has observed that there is no bar in consulting a lawyer prior to lodging a complaint. After perusal of the record, it is seen that PW-1 has deviated in her evidence from Ex.P-1, complaint, and the allegations mentioned in Ex.P-1 are not spoken to by her in evidence, and the evidence adduced by other witnesses is also contradictory to each other and also self-contrary in nature. 7. In a Revision or Appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited. If there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court, this Court can interfere and set aside such order. When two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and one view, which is in favour of the Accused, is taken into account and the lower Court acquitted the Accused, there is no need of interference with the same by this Court. Furthermore the incident took place in 1998 and the present Revision and the Appeal are filed in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the lower court appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and rightly found the Accused not guilty of the offences and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Appeal are dismissed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 05-07-2010 YCR