THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.103 OF 2004 DATED 1st DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : The State of A.P. .. Appellant and P.Giridhar Rao & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.103 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellant-State challenging the judgment, dated 18.10.2002, passed by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.100 of 1998. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: The complainant Smt.Radha filed a complaint against the accused stating that she was a widow with two sons from her earlier marriage and A.1 was a divorcee with a daughter from his first wife. Her marriage was performed with A.1 on 13.11.1995 with sufficient dowry of cash and kind in pursuance of the marriage talks. After the marriage A.1 used to beat her in drunken condition and used to taunt her that he married a widow. She further alleged that A.1 used to spend money lavishly for his bad vices and became an insolvent and thereby differences cropped between herself and A.1 and A.1 started harassing her physically and mentally and finally made her to reach her parents house along with her children. After carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the learned Magistrate acquitted A.1 to A.3 under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard. In the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that except some vague allegations no specific allegations levelled against the accused, the demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- spoken to by the witnesses in the Court was not informed to the investigating officer at the time of recording the statements, the evidence adduced by the wife of A.1 that she was assaulted by her husband is not supported by any medical evidence and also the letter written by A.1, which was produced by the defence, clearly established that the accused and P.W.1 are not having any inimical terms. This Court perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The judgment of the learned Magistrate is well considered and the learned Magistrate has evaluated the evidence and appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and also relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in connection with offence punishable under Section 498A IPC more particularly the decision rendered in Pawan Kumar and others v. State of Haryana[1] and Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar[2]. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused are acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 01.12.2010 sur [1] 1998 Crl.L.J. 1144 [2] 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 882 (SC)