THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.100 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners-appellants against the judgment, dated 29.01.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2004 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.181 of 2003 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, whereby and where under the petitioners-A1 to A6 were convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. Heard. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The first accused Ramesh married P.W.1 Padmapriya on 27.01.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. P.W.1’s parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry to A1 to A4 at the time of marriage and she joined A1 at his house at Kota village and they lived happily for one month and thereafter all the appellants started harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. On 17th March her parents came to her house to bring her and her husband for the festival of Ugadi, her husband A1 at the instigation of other appellants demanded to convert the Kissan Vikas Patras for a sum of Rs.50,000/- which stood in the joint account of himself and P.W.1 into the name of A4 otherwise she would be driven out. Having no other go P.W.1 Padmapriya came along with her parents. In anticipation of a case to be filed by Padmapriya, the 1st appellant filed a petition for divorce. On receipt of notice in the said petition P.W.1 Padmapriya along with her brother went to the appellants at Kota village but she was not allowed into the house. Then she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Vijayawada. Then all the appellants came for talks under the mediation of P.W.5 Varaprasad in which they agreed to take her back if she comes along with Rs.50,000/- and household articles. Accordingly on 04.06.2003 she was going to her in-laws house along with the said property and while she was going A1 informed to them through phone that she has to bring Rs.1,00,000/- otherwise they would not allow her into the house. Having no other go she gave report to the Police on 06.06.2003 and on that a case in Cr.No.67 of 2003 was registered under Section 498(A) read with 34 IPC against the accused. On 23.06.2003 the accused were arrested and later enlarged on bail. Hence the charge. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. P.W.1 Sundru Padmapriya deposed that her marriage with A1 was performed on 27.01.1999 at Vijayawada as per Hindu customs. On betrothal ceremony, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- to A4(father of A1) in the presence of remaining accused. They demanded Rs.50,000/- in addition to one lakh. Then her father purchased Kissan Vikas Patras for Rs.50,000/- in the name of herself and A1 jointly. After the marriage she went to matrimonial house to lead marital life. They lived in joint family happily for one month. Thereafter at the instance of A2 to A4, A1 used to ill-treat her and make burn injuries also. Whenever A5 and A6 also insisted A1 to ill-treat her. On 17.03.1999 when her mother and brother came to her in-laws house for inviting her and A1 for Ugadi festival, in their presence also accused beat her and demanded to transfer Kissan Vikas Patras in favour of A4. When she refused, accused drove her from the house. Then they returned to Bapatla and informed to her father. Her father made mediation through P.Ws.4 and 5 and promised to pay Rs.50,000/- and requested to take back her. A1 refused to take her back and in November 1999 she received a notice from A1 for divorce. When they went to question A1 about the notice, accused did not allow them even to enter into the house. Then she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In May 2003, her father again made mediation through P.W.5 and agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and household articles as demanded by accused and accused also agreed to take back on 04.06.2003. But on 04.06.2003 when she is preparing to go to her in-laws house, she received a phone call from A1 demanding Rs.1,00,000/- in additional to Rs.50,000/- as agreed earlier. As her father is not in a position to give that much of amount, she gave report to the police. Ex.P1 is her report. P.Ws.2 and 4 deposed on the same lines as stated by P.W.1. P.W.5, who is a mediator between A1 and P.W.1 deposed the facts as stated by P.W.1. He further deposed that on 04.06.2003 he received a phone call from A3 to the effect that A2 threatened to commit suicide if they allowed P.W.1 for conjugal life and A1 and A4 demanded for another additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and he informed the same to the parents of P.W.1. P.W.6 is the Asst.Sub.Inspector of Police, who registered the case against the accused and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 5. P.W.7 Sub.Inspector of Police deposed that he arrested A1 to A6 and sent them to court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. P.W.3, who is neighbour of A1 turned hostile against prosecution. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences and convicted the accused as stated above. It is seen from the records that the learned trial Judge and the appellate Judge considering the evidence of the victim lady, her father, her brother and the mediator P.W.5, convicted the accused. In one voice, all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution that the accused person harassed the complainant and demanded additional dowry. The lower Court after evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.5, who is the advocate who contacted mediation between the accused and P.W.1, convicted the accused as stated above. Heard both sides. This Court perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. On perusal of the record, the only point that arises for disposal of the present revision is Whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is sustainable or not? The learned senior counsel Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, has raised the following points for consideration: Admittedly marriage of P.W.1 and A1 was performed on 27.01.1999. P.W.1 joined in the company of the first accused on 20.02.1999. She lived with the accused up to 17.03.1999 only for a period of one month. She left the matrimonial home on the said date and she never returned to the matrimonial home. In the meanwhile, A1 caused a notice on 11.12.1999 for which also P.W.1 has not replied. Then, A1 filed divorce O.P. on 08.02.2000 vide O.P.No.519 of 2000. After filing of the said divorce, P.W.1 also filed O.P.No.290 of 2000 on 29.06.2000 for restitution of conjugal rights. After lapse of 3 ½ years, she lodged the present complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1 on 06.06.2003 claiming that the accused persons harassed her by demanding dowry, which clearly indicates the ill-motive, the present complaint is lodged. On perusal of the records, the said facts came to light as stated by the learned senior counsel and further the perusal of evidence of P.W.1, who is the victim in the hands of the appellant-accused admits that she lived with A1 in the in-laws house only for a period of one month. During that period, the allegation deposed by her that P.W.1 assaulted her with belt and also caused burn injuries with candle, but the said fact was not mentioned in the complaint and the same was not reported to the investigation officer. Further during the said period between 20.02.1999 to 17.03.1999 there is nothing on record to show that the accused demanded dowry from P.W.1 to attract an offence under Section 498(A) IPC. The harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry in the said period of one month. Analyzing the entire evidence, nothing is there to inform that the accused demanded dowry and harassed P.W.1. In order to create a cause of action, P.W.1 further deposed that after filing of this O.P. by accused and P.W.1, mediation was conducted by P.W.5, who is an advocate. During the mediation, both parties agreed and also P.W.1 wants to lead matrimonial life with the accused and further stated after the compromise entered between the parties, A1 called her through phone and informed her parents that on additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- he has ready to take her back, other wise, A2 will commit suicide. That is the allegation in the second part of the complaint and also in the evidence. The said contention was supported by P.W.5, who is an advocate, who contacted the mediation. The entire reading of the evidence, absolutely nothing is there as far as A2 to A6 are concerned except some bald allegations. As far as the allegations against A1 are concerned, it is highly unbelievable, when she lived with A1 only for a period of one month and subsequently she has not taken any steps to lodge a complaint against the accused. But whereas, after filing of the O.P. for divorce by A1 in the year 1999, she has also filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said petition for restitution of conjugal rights also, she has not stated regarding the said facts deposed by her before the trial Court. The evidence adduced by P.W.1 and the witnesses before the trial Court in a criminal case is an improvement and also the alleged allegations are only with an intention to implicate the accused in this case. Admittedly, the accused obtained order of divorce on 18.08.2000 and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the complainant also dismissed by the concerned Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish a case against the petitioners-appellants, more particularly, under Section 498(A) IPC read with 34 IPC. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, in C.C.No.181 of 2003 and confirmed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A.No. 379 of 2004 against the accused is hereby set aside. The fine amount if any paid by the petitioners is directed to the returned to the petitioners-appellants- accused. ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date:01.07.2011 Rns