IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.235 of 2011 DATE: 27.04.2011 Between: Smt.R.Vani …… Appellant And Rachakonda Vinod and others ...Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.235 of 2011 JUDGMENT : The victim/P.W-1 seeks to file appeal against acquittal recorded by the VII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at Lal Bahadur Nagar in S.C. No.474 of 2007. A-1 to A-6/respondents 1 to 6 were acquitted by the lower Court of the charges under Sections 498-A and 307/34 I.P.C. A-1 is husband of the appellant. A-2 is married sister of A-1. A-3 is mother of A-1. A-4 to A-6 are other relations of A-1. Except A-1 and A-3, no other accused was living with the appellant. A-2 was married even prior to marriage of the appellant with A-1. P.Ws 2 and 3 are parents of P.W-1. P.Ws 4 and 5 are relations of P.Ws 1 to 3. There is no dispute about the relationship among the accused and P.Ws 1 to 5. It was specifically alleged that A-1 to A-6 put together took P.W-1 at about 12.30 P.M to the third floor of the house with an intention to kill her and pushed her down to the ground. In the incident of fall, P.W-1 sustained grievous injuries to her spinal chord and other parts. None of the neighbours is examined to prove the alleged throwing of P.W-1 by the accused from third floor to the ground. Except the evidence of P.W-1, there is no other evidence to corroborate the said incident. According to the accused, P.W-1 accidentally fell from the third floor to the ground by slipping. In the absence of possible oral evidence in support of P.W-1’s version, the lower Court rightly did not place reliance on uncorroborated testimony of P.W-1 on this aspect. Because of the disputes between the two families, there is every possibility of implicating all the accused in a false case. The lower Court also took note of the contradiction contained in Ex.D-1 deposition of P.W-1 in maintenance proceedings wherein P.W-1 said that she had no disputes with her husband/A-1 and that at the instigation of mother-in-law/A-3, A-1 was harassing her. There was no motive muchless strong motive on the part of the accused to make attempt to kill P.W-1 in this case. Taking advantage of an accidental fall, P.W-1 in consultation with her parents gave false report against A-1 and all his family members and relations. 2) There is no possibility of A-2 and A-4 to A-6 harassing P.W-1 for the sake of dowry, as all of them are busy with their respective avocations and residing at different places in their respective houses. If really A-1 and A-3 were harassing P.W- 1 for the sake of dowry, it would be known to the neighbours where they lived together. Evidence of P.Ws 2 to 5 was found to be interested by the lower Court. After full fledged trial and after considering the entire evidence in detail, the lower Court rightly found A-1 to A-6 not guilty of the charges. There are no grounds either on facts or in law to interfere with the said finding of the lower Court in this appeal. 3) Hence, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 27, 2011 ksh