HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.291 of 2009 Date: December 07, 2011 Between: 1. Begari Tuljaram & 3 others … Petitioners/ Appellants/ Accused 1 to 4 And The State of A.P., Through rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent/ Complainant * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.291 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed by A-1 to A-4 in C.C. No.251 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Zaheerabad, who were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC, which has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. The wife of the first accused filed a complaint stating that she was married to the accused No.1 in the year 2003 and that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs.30,000/- and household articles were presented. She joined accused No.1 and after one year she was asked to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and the parents could not give it. Thereafter there was a compromise and the accused promised to look after P.W.1 properly and again there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and when the complainant was pregnant, she was necked out of the house. She claims to have informed her parents about the claim for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. When she went to the house of the accused subsequently, she found another lady by name Rukmini, who is said to have been married A-1. Therefore on complaint given by her, the police have investigated and filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 498 (A) IPC against A-1 to A-4 and also under Section 494 and 494 read with 109 IPC against other accused. 3. A-2 and A-3 are said to be the parents of A-1; A-4 is brother of A-1; A-5 is said to be the second wife of A-1 and A-6 and A-7 are said to be the parents of A-5. All the accused pleaded not guilty and after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, the learned Magistrate convicted A-1 to A-4 for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC and accordingly sentenced. The accused were found not guilty for the other offences. 4. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is legal and sustainable? 5. POINT: There is no dispute about the marriage between accused No.1 and P.W.1. Apart from examining herself as P.W.1, P.W.2, the father of P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 and 4, who are said to the elders were examined. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the investigating officers. The evidence on record shows that P.W.1 joined A-1 and led marital life for a period of one year happily. Though some cash and ornaments are said to have been presented at the time of marriage, the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 does not show that there was a demand by the accused and presented the same and therefore they are only customary presentations which were given at the time of marriage. 6. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses two incidents. One is demand of Rs.20,000/- one year after the marriage and thereafter the elders have interfered and she was received back by the accused. Therefore, the earlier demand of Rs.20,000/- has no relevancy. But subsequently, according to the evidence of P.W.1, within 15 days the accused again started demanding her for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and she was necked out and she was pregnant at that time. It is to be noticed that the evidence of P.W.1 is not clear as to when she became pregnant and as to when she gave birth to the daughter. Even the evidence of P.W.2 also does not disclose the above fact. The evidence of the witnesses also is silent as to in which year the alleged demand was made and as to whether P.W.1 was taken for delivery voluntarily by P.W.2 or necked out on demand of dowry. 7. The theory that the other accused harassed for dowry does not appear to be true when P.W.1 is having marital relationship with A-1 and also has got pregnancy during the disputed period. Therefore, the theory of harassment for dowry by all the accused appears to be improbable. However, by the time when P.W.1 returned after delivery, she said to have been not taken and A-5 another woman was said to be present in the house. Though there is no proof of marriage with A- 5, her presence with A-1 is established from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Evidently A-4 is a student and aged below 19 years and his harassing P.W.1 for bringing dowry appears to be improbable. 8. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the prosecution case against A-2 to A-4 cannot be said to be established, but however, there seems to be some truth in the allegation that A-1 has developed intimacy with another woman and subjected P.W.1 to mental cruelty attracting the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC as such the conviction and sentence of A-2 to A-4 is set aside and they are found not guilty of the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC and accordingly they are acquitted. The fine amount paid by them shall be refunded. So far as A-1 is concerned, the conviction for the offence under Section 498 (A) IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months on payment of further fine of Rs.2,000/-, failing which the original sentence stands. The period of remand, if any, undergone by A-1 shall be set off. 9. Accordingly the criminal revision case is disposed of. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: December 07, 2011. BSB