THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.218 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C. by the State is directed against judgment dated 09.02.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.479 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, whereunder and whereby respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 were found not guilty of the charges levelled against them. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Appeal may be stated as under:- Accused No.1 is none other than the husband of P.W.1 and their marriage had taken place in the year 1995. For about twelve years, they lived happily, but they were not blessed with children. Thereafter accused No.1 started harassing P.W.1 demanding additional dowry. The dispute arose when 100 sq. yards of site given by the father of P.W.1 at the time of marriage, was mortgaged by accused No.1 and did not return the title deeds to P.W.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on one occasion accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 poured kerosene on the body of P.W.1 and tried set fire to her. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, based on which P.W.8 took up investigation, examined witnesses and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. The trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A I.P.C. against accused No.1, Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. against accused Nos.4, 5 and 7. When the charges were readover to the respective accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 documents. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, however, Ex.D1 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.1 was marked. 5. The trial Court, considering evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 I.P.C. were not established and accordingly all the accused were acquitted. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the charges levelled against them? 7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that she was subjected to harassment as accused No.1 was making unlawful demand for additional dowry and that on one occasion accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 poured kerosene on the body of P.W.1 and tried to set fire to her and therefore, the necessary ingredients of the charges levelled against the accused have been established and therefore, he prays to convict all the accused by setting aside acquittal. 8. There is presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further established by an order of acquittal. Unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or contrary to law or they are not based on any admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 9. The offence alleged against accused No.1 is under Section 498- A I.P.C. Necessary ingredients under Section 498-A I.P.C. are that there must be harassment or cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry or valuable security by or any of the relatives of the husband. ‘Cruelty’ for the purpose of this Section means, any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 10. The offence alleged against accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 is under Section 307 I.P.C. To constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. the evidence must disclose that death of a human being was attempted or that the death was attempted to be caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused and such an act was done with an intention of causing death or that was done with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew that it is to cause death or that the accused had attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause the death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, the accused has not excused from incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. Therefore, to find a person guilty of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C., actual injury on the victim may not be necessary. The intention or knowledge of the accused of such act done by him must be necessary to constitute murder under Section 307 I.P.C. 11. Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, the allegation, according to the evidence of P.W.1 is that accused No.1 mortgaged 100 sq. yards of site given by her father at the time of marriage. That aspect was not stated by her when she was examined by police during the course of investigation. She has not also stated to the police that on account of this property, she was subjected to harassment. The case set out by the accused is that the said 100 sq. yards of land was not given by father of P.W.1, but in fact that property belonged to the aunt of accused No.1 and she gifted the said property in favour of P.W.1. This fact was admitted by P.W.1 to the extent that the aunt of accused No.1 is the owner of the property. Therefore, the entire case of prosecution that 100 sq. yards of site given by father of P.W.1 was mortgaged by accused No.1, on the face of it, is false. Father of P.W.1 also did not specifically state that accused No.1 was demanding additional dowry. Therefore, there is no evidence to show what was the unlawful demand of accused No.1 to P.W.1. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. are not established and acquitted accused No.1 of the said offence. There is no other evidence available in support of the allegation that accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 harassed P.W.1. Therefore, the said accused were also rightly acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. 12. Coming to the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against accused Nos.2, 3 and 6, it is the case of P.W.1 that accused No.6, who is the sister-in-law of P.W.1, poured kerosene on her on 29.03.2007 and tried to kill her, and the neighbours, who gathered after hearing the cries at the scene of occurrence, informed the fact to the police. Admittedly accused No.6 is not resident of Tenali, where the incident occurred. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available to improbablise the fact that accused No.6 was residing at Vijayawada along with her husband. The neighbourers did not speak about the specific overtacts against accused No.6 because after hearing some cries they rushed to the scene of occurrence. Therefore, their evidence is in the nature of hearsay. Admittedly they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Furthermore, if clothes of P.W.1 were poured with kerosene alleged by accused No.6, police ought to have seized those clothes. There are no other circumstances to indicate that accused No.6 poured kerosene on P.W.1 with an intention to kill her. Presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 is excluded by P.W.1 and she stated that accused No.6 poured kerosene. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 of the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 09.02.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.479 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) 09th February, 2010 GHN