THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1385 of 2002 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the judgment dated 16.09.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Medak district at Sanga Reddy. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: Marriage of A.1 with P.W.1 was performed in the year 1990 and at that time, cash of an amount of Rs.10,000/-, 3 tolas of gold, and house hold articles, were given as dowry. They lived happily for about six years. It is alleged that, thereafter, all the accused started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,000/-. It is also alleged that A.1 married A.4 during subsistence of the first marriage. So, the complaint was lodged in the year 1998 and police registered the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 for the offences under Sections 494 and 498A I.P.C. 3. The trial Court took the case on file as C.C. NO.162 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, and after appreciating the evidence on record, found A.1 to A.4 not guilty of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. A.4 was found not guilty of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and accordingly she was acquitted. But, the trial Court found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. 4. Challenging the same, A.1 to A.3 preferred the appeal before the appellate court. The appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against A.2 and A.3, but confirmed the same against A.1. Challenging the same, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioner/A.1. 5. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the courts below is correct, legal and proper ? 6. There cannot be any dispute that, revisional powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings of the courts below are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. For the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., ‘cruelty’ has to be established. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of 498A I.P.C. is any willful conduct which is of a nature as 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 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. 7. Marriage of A.1 with P.W.1, and the husband and wife living together without there being any dispute or quarrel, is not in dispute. It is alleged that, all the accused started harassing P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,000/-. P.W.1 is the wife of A.1, P.W.2 is her mother and P.W.3 is the relative of P.W.1. As seen from the evidence, an omnibus accusation is levelled against A.1 to A.3 alleging that they were demanding Rs.5,000/- towards additional dowry. No doubt, demanding P.W.1 to bring Rs.5,000/- is unlawful demand and it comes within the meaning of harassment. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is to be accepted, then harassment can be attributable to all the accused. Though the trial court found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., the appellate court gave benefit of doubt to A.2 and A.3 on the ground that they were residing separately. 8. When the evidence of prosecution witnesses is common with regard to overt-acts against all the accused, in such a case, all the accused have to be convicted if the evidence is found to be acceptable and trustworthy. Further, when the evidence as against all accused is common, segregation of the evidence without there being any reasons, is not permissible. The appellate court, having given benefit of doubt to A.2 and A.3, should have extended the same benefit to petitioner/A.1 also, inasmuch as, the evidence with regard to harassment towards P.W.1 by A.1 to A.3 is one and the same. In such circumstances, a part of the testimony of a witness cannot be relied upon to convict the accused unless substantial reasons are given for not placing reliance on the evidence which incriminates against other accused. 9. Having lived for about 6 years, without there being any quarrel or altercation or harassment, it is not probable to believe that P.W.1 was necked out after six years of conjugal life. Eight years after the marriage, for the first time, P.W.1 lodged the complaint. During the wedlock, most of the time, she lived with her husband. But, none of the neighbourers was examined to speak about the alleged cruelty meted out to P.W.1 by A.1 to A.3. Further more, on the same evidence, when two other accused were acquitted, the same benefit of doubt should have been extended to A.1 also. This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the appellate court and came to wrong conclusion while convicting petitioner/A.1. Hence, the petitioner/A.1 is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A.1 by the courts below of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. are set aside. The petitioner/A.1 is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., and accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the petitioner/A.1 shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid him shall be returned to him forthwith. 11. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, allowed. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 6.8.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1385 of 2002 06.08.2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1385 of 2002 Date: 06.8.2009 Between: Kummari Komaraiah, s/o. Anjaiah …Petitioner and State of A.P. through S.H.O., Ramachandrapuram p.s., Medak district rep. by the P.P., High Court of A .P. …Respondents This Court made the following: