THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.124 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.970 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool. 2. On the complaint given by the revision petitioner, a case was registered by the Police Kodumur, and after due investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 3. According to the case of the complainant, she was married to A.1 on 22.05.2002. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 15 tulas of gold were given to the accused and the couple lived in the house of A.1 along with A.2 to A.4. Thereafter, A.1 to A.4 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry and she was necked out of the house. When her father along with elders requested the accused not to harass the complainant and take her to their house, the accused further demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, her father paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- . A.1 lived with the complainant at her parents’ house for three months and again left the complainant at her parents’ house and went to his village. Thereafter, A.1 is said to have married A.5 and therefore, the complainant lodged complaint against the accused. 4. The accused have maintained a plea of innocence. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.6. After considering the evidence and after appreciating the evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused. 5. The point for consideration is whether the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool is vitiated? 6. POINT: From the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 it is quite clear that the marriage of the revision petitioner was performed with A.1 on 22.05.2002. Though a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 15 tulas of gold were said to have been given as dowry, it is not complained as to that it was paid on demand. It can only be taken as a payment at the option of the family members of PWs.1 and 2. The material question for determination is as to how long PW.1 lived with A.1 and as to when she joined A.1 in order to appreciate the complaint of harassment. The evidence of PW.1, which was appreciated by lower Court, shows that till 1½ years after the marriage, the accused did not take her to the house as it was not auspicious and thereafter, she joined A.1. Thereafter, she is said to have been harassed and a panchayat was said to have been held. The evidence of the father of PW.1 goes to show that nine months after the marriage PW.1 joined A.1 and stayed in his house for a period of six months and later, A.1 refused to live with PW.1 and left the house. Thereafter, again he sent his daughter to the house of the accused and she stayed there for six months. His evidence does not disclose with regard to demand of any excess dowry after she joined the accused. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is also about joining of PW.1 about nine months after the marriage. In fact, the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 clearly goes to show that at their request A.1 himself came to the house of PW.2 and lived with PW.1 for sometime. Therefore, this clearly goes to show that so-called demand for dowry and harassment is improbable. The evidence on record, therefore, does not disclose a case of harassment for additional dowry as complained and the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the lower Court. There are no infirmities in the trial and there are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:12-12-2011 INL