THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1075 of 2011 BETWEEEN: Yerraguntla Thimmayapalle Sabiha Tasleem … Appellant AND 1. The State of A.P.& 7 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1075 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The de facto complainant/victim/wife of A1 seeks to file this appeal against acquittal of A1 of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and acquittal of A2 to A6 of the offences under Sections 498-A and 354 I.P.C. A2 died and so the case against A2 stood abated. A2 is father of A1. A3 to A6 are relations of A1. It is alleged that A1 and A2 were harassing PW1 on the ground that she is a progeny of a Hindu and a Muslim and not exclusively a Muslim girl and also on suspecting her character. It is further alleged that A3 to A6 used to visit the house of A1 and A2 and instigate A1 and A2 to harass PW1 so that A1 would marry a girl of their choice. There was also mediation between the parties in respect of the above allegations in the presence of PW4, who is an elder. PW2 is father of PW1 and his evidence is based on hearsay from PW1. In my opinion, taking the above allegations for granted for the sake of argument, they will not attract any liability under Section 498-A I.P.C. Admittedly, there was no demand for any valuable property or money or dowry in this case. Therefore, Clause-(b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. has no application herein. Clause-(a) of the said explanation is also not applicable herein, since there was no suicide or damage to any limb or health of PW1. In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly found that A2 to A6 are not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. But the lower Court convicted A1 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 2. Insofar as the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it is alleged that A1 and A2 while watching phonographic films, used to invite PW1 to see the same. This allegation also does not attract liability under Section 354 I.P.C., since there was no use of criminal force or assault as against PW1, outraging her modesty. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:26.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1075 of 2011 DATED:26.07.2011 ysk