THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.996 OF 2004 Dated: 29-06-2011 Between: Smt. D.C. Saraswathy. - - - Petitioner/ P.W.1. And C. Balaji Kumar and four others Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.996 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner-De- facto Complainant (PW.1) against judgment of acquittal dated 26-02- 2004 made in Calender Case No.695 of 2000, by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District, whereby the Respondents/Accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The Respondents-Accused were prosecuted in the Calender Case No.695 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Before the trial Court for the Petitioner/De-facto complainant, she got examined herself as PW.1 and 5 others as PWs.2 to 6 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked and for the Respondents/Accused none were examined and portion of statement of PW.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was got marked as Ex.D-1 on behalf of the accused. After due trial, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner/De-facto complainant (PW.1). 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/De-facto complainant that the prosecution proved the charges levelled against the Respondents/Accused in the case and the trial Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the Criminal Revision Case is to be allowed setting aside the judgment of acquittal made in the Calender Case, dated 26-02-2004, by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner? 5. I have gone through the record. PW.1 the de-facto complainant made lot of improvements over the report given by her in other words, there is no consistency between her report and evidence about the alleged cruelty and dowry harassment of the accused. PW.1 the de- facto complainant and her brother PW.2 stated that on 09-06-2000 the first of them was driven out from the matrimonial house after harassment to fulfil their demands but she gave report to the police on 20-07-2000. But she admitted that her husband A-1 gave notice to her to join him prior to that and she gave reply and on 19-06-2000 he filed O.P. for divorce against her, she failed to give proper reply for all those circumstances. PWs.3 and 4 deposed about the harassment claiming to have acted as panchayatdars or elders to settle the disputes, their evidence is hearsay. 6. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not acceptable. Further, the parents of PW.1 the de-facto complainant were not examined which is fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.29-06-2011. Dsh/Ksm. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 211 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.996 OF 2004 Date:29.06.2011 Dsh.