THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 27 of 2005. JUDGEMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgement dt. 5.1.2005 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Crl.A.No. 6 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed against the Judgement dt. 15.12.2001 in C.C.No. 310 of 1999 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Vijayawada and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and acquitted A.2 to A.5 of the said offence. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.8.1989, Pw.2 Shaik Aminabi was married to A.1 and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was given to him towards dowry besides 59 grams of gold ornaments and that after the marriage, both of them lived together for about ten months and thereafter, A.1 and his family members started harassing Pw.2 for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and that all the accused harassed her both physically and mentally and necked her out of matrimonial home. Though the village elders tried to pacify the disputes between Pw.2 and the accused, the accused did not heed the advice of the elders and did not allow Pw.2 to come to their house. Pw.2 having no other option preferred a police complaint against the accused on 14.5.1998 and after lodging the complaint, the accused assured Pw.2 that they would not harass her for additional dowry and then the matter was compromised. After lapse of some time, again the accused started harassing Pw.2 and then Pw.2 again lodged another complaint against the accused on 4.4.1999 before the police Machavaram who registered a case in Cr.No. 151 of 1999 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 9 and got marked Exs: P.1 to P.7. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused but Ex:D.1 a letter written by Pw.2 was marked on their behalf. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, found all the accused guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month., by the Judgment dt. 15.12.2001. As against the Judgement of the trial court, the accused preferred Crl.A.No. 6 of 2002 and the said Criminal Appeal was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1 was confirmed and A.2 to A.5 are acquitted by the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused No.1 filed the present revision case. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the letters dt. 23.8.1998 and 26.8.1998 which were already referred to by the trial court in its Judgement at the end of para 14 that the contents of the said letters do not reveal that the accused harassed and committed acts of cruelty against Pw.2 to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- but however the contents of the letters do reveal that Pw.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by A.1. These letters, of course, were addressed by Pw.2 to her father Pw.1. It is also his case that Pw.8 being a child witness aged about 11 years at the time of his testimony, the court below ought not to have taken into consideration his evidence since he admitted in his cross-examination that he was tutored by his maternal grand parents to depose before the court. It is also further his case that the other witnesses who are examined as Pws 3,4 and 7 did not support the case of the prosecution and if the evidence of Pw.8 is excluded from consideration, the only evidence remains against the accused is that Pw.2, who is self- interested witness and the same cannot be relied on. However, both the courts below considered the evidence on record including the evidence of Pw.2. It is to be seen from the evidence of Pw.2 that she has testified in support of the case of the prosecution and the same was believed by both the courts below. Her evidence is cogent and trustworthy. Moreover, the fact that she had to approach the police twice itself speaks of her plight. In the circumstances, this revisional court is of the view that the impugned Judgement of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada dt. 5.1.2005 in Crl.A.No. 6 of 2002 does not suffer from any error or irregularity and the same is not liable to be set aside. In the result, the criminal revision case fails and the same is dismissed. _____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 19.2.1010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 27 of 2005. Dt. 19.2.2010.