IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NOs : 791 & 906 OF 2003 Between: Kammili Jhansi ..... PETITIONER AND Vachula Sarala and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.Nos. 791 & 906 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: The petitioner herein, who was examined as P.W.1, gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Krishna Lanka police station. On the basis of which, a case in Crime No.120 of 1994 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 497 and 506 read with Section 109 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, as C.C.No.407 of 1997. During the course of trial, the petitioner and 10 others were examined as P.Ws.1 to 11 and Exs.P-1 to P-21 were marked. On an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that A-1, A-5 and A-6 were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and A- 2 to A-4 were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 109 IPC, and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, A-1, A-5 and A-6 filed Crl.A.No.46 of 2001 and A-2 to A-4 filed Crl.A.No.47 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Vijayawada and the learned Sessions Judge, vide his common judgment dated 27-03-2003, allowed those two appeals setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted all the accused. As the State has not chosen to file any revision against the acquittal of the accused, the de facto complainant filed these two revisions, and hence, these revisions cases are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant-Kammili Jhansi was performed with A-1 in Chandralok complex, Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and caste customs. A-2 is alleged to have married A-1. A-3 and A-4 are residents of Vijayawada and they acted as mediators to the marriage of the complainant. A-5 and A-6 are the parents of A-1. At the time of marriage, A-1 was given a cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, the complainant is living with her parents at Rahul Apartments, Vijaywada, since A-1 is working as Cashier in the Bank of Maharashtra at Padoli. A-1 used to visit their house to lead marital life, and after sometime, they gave birth to a male child. In spite of P.W.1’s request to take her to Padoli, A-1 avoided to take her. Further A-1 used to insist her on bringing more money. A-5 and A-6 also supported A-1 and demanded money. Later, A-1 stopped visiting the house of the complainant. On enquiry, they came to know that A-1 married A-2 and living with her at Padoli since A-2 discarded her husband. After sometime, A-2 met the complainant and warned her with dire consequences that she will see her end in case, she made any effort to live with A-1. When A-1 and A-2 visited the house of A-3 and A-4 at Vijayawada, the complainant went there and asked A-1 to come with her. Then some altercation took place, and at the instigation of A-2 to A-4, A-1 beat the complainant indiscriminately and drove her away. Having disgusted with the behaviour of the accused, the complainant gave a report to the police at Krishna Lanka police station, and the police registered a case in Crime No.120 of 1994 under Sections 498-A, 497, and 506 read with Section 109 IPC and filed charge sheet. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. This court can understand the agony of the petitioner herein, however, this Court is conscious of the fact that these are the revisions against acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 109 IPC, where the scope of this Court is very much restricted and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence, and even if this Court reappreciates the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the lower appellate Court erred in recording acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remit the matters back to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Further, as the alleged offence took place in the year 1994, and these revisions are filed against the common judgment of acquittal, this court is not inclined to entertain these revisions. 5. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. ___________________ 19th August 2010 KVR