THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1231 OF 2004 Dated: 24-06-2011 Between: M. Padmavathi. - - - Petitioner/ P.W.1. And Munugoti Ramakrishna, four others Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1231 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner-De- facto Complainant (PW.1) against judgment of acquittal dated 23-04- 2004 made in Calender Case No.61 of 2004, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, Guntur, whereby the Respondents/Accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The Respondents-Accused were prosecuted in the Calender Case No.61 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Before the trial Court for the Petitioner/De-facto complainant PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked and for the Respondents/Accused none were examined and no documents were marked. After due trial, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, Guntur, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner/De-facto complainant (PW.1). 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/De- facto complainant that the prosecution proved the charges levelled against the Respondents/Accused in the case and the trial Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the Criminal Revision Case is to be allowed setting aside the judgment of acquittal made in the Calender Case, dated 23-04- 2004, by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise, Guntur. 4. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner? 5. I have gone through the record. After the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the lower Court basing upon the evidence adduced and good reasoning held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the Respondents/Accused. The de-facto complainant made lot of improvements over the report given by her in other words, there is no consistency in her report and evidence about the alleged cruelty of the accused. The evidence of other witnesses examined is also not reliable and acceptable. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.24-06-2011. Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 266 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1231 OF 2004 Date:24.06.2011 Dsh.