IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.316 of 2008 DATE:25.01.2011 Between: Chapathi Vijayalakshmi Kumari …… Appellant And The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor And others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.316 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the defacto-complainant against acquittal of A-1 to A-4/respondents 2 to 5 invoking Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C provides for appeal against an order of acquittal in a case instituted upon complaint. But in the lower Court, the case was filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station, Kadapa upon final report/charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, as per the law which stood on 06.02.2008 when this appeal is filed by the defacto-complainant, this appeal is not maintainable in law at the behest of the defacto-complainant. 2) The police filed charge sheet and the lower Court i.e., I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadapa framed charges against A-1 to A-4 for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 is husband of P.W-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 is brother of A-1. Admittedly A-4 is residing separately from A-1 to A-3 at a distant place from the house of A- 1 to A-3. The lower Court came to the conclusion that there is discrepancy among evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 with regard to the alleged dowry amount. P.W-1 is the victim, P.W-2 is mother of P.W-1. P.W-3 is brother of P.W-2. P.W-4 is the mediator who is said to have settled marriage between A-1 and P.W-1. According to P.Ws 1 to 3, dowry of Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments of 15 tolas were given as dowry to the accused. But P.W-4 says dowry of Rs.16,000/- and 10 tolas of gold was given towards dowry and that house-hold articles were also given. The lower Court did not place any reliance on evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 with regard to dowry amount as they are interested witnesses. Further, as per Ex.D-8 entered into by both the parties in the presence of elders on 01.02.2005, disputes between the parties were settled and P.W-1 re-joined A-1. P.W- 1 admits Ex.D-8 as well as her signature thereunder. Ex.D-8 was also signed by Eswar Reddy and Subbi Reddy. But the prosecution did not examine any of the said elders. 3) Even with regard to the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C is concerned, there is no independent and direct evidence except that of P.W-1. The lower Court noticed that evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4 is nothing but hear say evidence. No neighbours of the house where P.W-1 lead family life with A-1, were examined. Mediators to Ex.D-8 were also not examined. Even as per evidence of P.W-1, A-1 and A-2 are agricultural coolies. When the original dowry itself was only Rs.16,000/- as per evidence of P.W-4, rightly it was not believed that the accused demanded additional demand of Rs.50,000/-. Omnibus allegations were made against all family members of A-1 including A-4 who is not residing in the family house and who is residing in a separate house at a long distance. 4) Further, there is no dispute that A-1 gave report to the Kamalapuram Police on 28.01.2005 against P.W-2 and P.W-1’s brother and it was registered as case in Crime No.43/2005 as per Ex.D-2. The said report of A-1 was five days prior to giving the present report Ex.P-1 by P.W-1. Therefore, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that the present report Ex.P-1 was given by P.W-1 as a counter blast for Ex.D-1 report given by A- 1. Having regard to all the above circumstances and state of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the lower Court rightly disbelieved evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 and acquitted A-1 to A-4. 5) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 25, 2011 ksh