HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1443 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners herein, appellants in criminal appeal No.134 of 2003 on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and accused in C.C.No.298 of 2003 on the file of the court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Excise) Karimnagar(for short the accused) against judgment, dated 13.08.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2003 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Initially, the accused were convicted by the trial Court under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of paying the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under the first count and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of paying the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each under the second count with a direction that both the sentences should run concurrently. Assailing the said Judgment, the petitioners preferred the appeal. In the appeal, the appellate court, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 498 IPC and Sec.4 of the D.P.Act, and dismissed the appeal. 3. Heard. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The first accused – Guduri Ramesh son of the second accused Guduri Vittal Bai married the de facto complainant on 22.12.1997 in the presence of caste elders and then Rs.3,00,000/- and 20 tolas of gold were given to the accused as dowry. After the marriage, the first accused and the de facto complainant lived happily for some time. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The accused used to abuse the de facto complainant in filthy language and beat her in black and blue. The accused did not change his attitude even after the de facto complainant gave birth to a male child in the year 1999. The de facto complainant went to the house of her parents and has been living there. After some time the accused approached caste elders and promised before the elders that they would look after the de facto complainant well. But inspite of that they did not change their attitude. Hence the de facto complainant lodged report against the accused under Section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of the D.P.Act. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and on behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced whereas the trial Court after necessary appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged and convicted the accused as stated above. 6. Now, the points to be considered are: 1. Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence and proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? 2. Whether the courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the conviction and sentence imposed against A1 and A2 are sustainable? 7. It is deposed by the de facto complainant as P.W.1 that at the time of her marriage, which took place on 22.12.1997 her parents presented Rs.3.00 lakhs towards dowry to A1 and also presented 22 tulas of gold to her and household articles to A1 and after three months of the marriage, the first accused and his mother, i.e., the second accused started harassing her demanding to bring Rs.2.00 lakhs as additional dowry and the first accused used to bear her every day and she informed the same to her parents and when her father questioned the conduct of the first accused, the latter threatened him (her father) with dire consequences going to the extent proclaiming that he would kill her and her father and then A2 also instigated A1 to bring additional dowry and on 08.04.99 she gave birth to a male child, but even after the birth of the male child also, there was no change in the attitude of the A1 & A2 and having no other go, she went to her parents house at Elgandula village. Further after some time, A1 and A2 went to her father’s (P.W.2’s) village with two mediators and assured P.W.2 that they would treat her properly and affectionately and took her, but there was no change in their attitude. In her cross-examination, she denied that her father got no capacity to pay the dowry and no panchayat was conducted and the accused did not harass her. 8. P.W.2, who is the father of the de facto complainant (P.W.1) also deposed as deposed by P.W.1. P.Ws.3 to 6 elders and neighbours of accused examined to establish the dowry harassment did not support the prosecution version and therefore, they were declared as hostile witnesses of the prosecution. 9. Further, P.W.7, the Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that P.W.1 did not state that they gave 22 tulas of gold to A1 and A2 at the time of marriage. Further no document was filed with regards to the said panchayat. 10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that it is pertinent to note here that no independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution version and when it is claimed that the said panchayat was conducted, there should be some proof and conclusion of it and the courts below failed to examine the material available properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 11. It is pertinent to note here that even though the said panchayat is said to have been conducted in the matter, no acceptable evidence is placed about it and P.Ws.3 to 6 deposed against the prosecution version. Further, if the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 is true, it is not difficult for them to examine some neighbours who can speak accordingly to establish their case. Further, there is no basis to say that P.W.2 could give dowry of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the first accused at the time of marriage. 12. Under the above said circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and hence benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 13. Hence the criminal revision case is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 4 of the D.P.Act are hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted of the said charges. ____________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date:28.07.2011 Rns