IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.426 OF 2001 Between: Smt. Rizwana Begum ..... Petitioner/Complainant AND Syed Mazhar Ahmed and 11 others ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner-complainant under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 28.11.2000, in C.C.No.132 of 1998, on the file of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bodhan, whereunder and whereby, the respondents/accused 1 to 11 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 342 and 506 IPC. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present case may be stated as follows: The marriage of A1 with P.W.1 was solemnized about four years prior to the filing of the complaint. At the time of marriage, A1 was presented with cash of Rs.40,000/-, one tola gold, 20 tolas of silver and other household articles worth Rs.25,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, P.W.1 and A1 lived together happily for about two months. Thereafter, all the accused started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-. The parents of P.W.1 accordingly paid Rs.10,000/-. For a couple of weeks, she was looked after well. Thereafter, all the accused started demanding P.W.1 to bring additional dowry. A1 to A5 and A8 forcibly got the pregnancy of P.W.1 terminated and was wrongfully confined in the house. P.W.1 informed the same to her brother-P.W.3 who filed a petition before the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bodhan, upon which a search warrant was issued, police secured her presence. Then P.W.1 filed a complaint before the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bodhan, and the same was referred to police, Bodhan, for investigation and report. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered under Section 498-A, 342 and 506 IPC and examined the witnesses and arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. When the charges under Section 498-A, 342 and 506 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. They denied the same. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused except marking Exs.D1 to D6. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, they were acquitted. Hence, the present criminal revision case. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. That presumption is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that any unlawful demand by the husband or relative of the husband of a woman is an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry and the same was informed to her father-P.W.2 who in turn paid Rs.10,000/-. But that fact has not been stated in the earliest version as narrated in Ex.P1. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that the accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and that payment was made by P.W.2. P.W.2 stated that the harassment of P.W.1 had begun three months after the marriage and therefore, he paid Rs.10,000/- to A1. Whereas, in Ex.D1, he stated that he paid Rs.10,000/- to A1 six months prior to his examination. Therefore, the trial Court doubted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 12. With regard to the termination of pregnancy, P.W.1 did not state before the police that A1 to A5 and A8 got her pregnancy terminated. It is clearly an improvement and therefore, such an improvement cannot be taken note of. 13. With regard to the wrongful confinement, there is a discrepancy. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. Certain contradictions have been elicited in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, which are marked as Exs.D1 to D3. They have not been proved. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 28.11.2000, in C.C.No.132 of 1998, on the file of the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bodhan. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 17th August, 2009. KL