HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.909 OF 2007 Dated 26-8-2014 Between:
Dandu Sreedevi.
And:
..Petitioner.
Dandu Srinu and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.909 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 13-10-2000 in C.C.No.41 of 1998 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rahajmundry whereunder respondents 1 to 3 are acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram Police Station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 alleging that marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 was performed about four years prior to 6-9-1997 and that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as dowry besides the gifts and that the marriage was consummated and they lived happily for about one year and thereafter, the accused became greedy towards dowry and subjected P.W.1 to cruelty and that on the report of P.W.1, case in Cr.No.95 of 1997 was registered and investigation revealed that respondents 1 to 3 caused harassment to P.W.1 and that they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined seven witnesses and marked eight documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and on that ground, acquitted respondents 1 to 3 herein under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard advocate for revision petitioner.
He submitted that trial court failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 who are mediators and who corroborated and supported the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to cruelty. He further submitted that trial court also failed to consider the letter written by A.3 dated 25- 5-1995 to the father of P.W.1 demanding dowry. He further submitted that court below failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and that the judgment of trial court is not legal.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgment of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition and also the judgment of the trial court. Out of seven witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, P.W.3 is brother of P.W.1, P.Ws.4 and 5 are mediators and P.W.6 is the Head Constable and P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. Out of seven witnesses, P.W.4 was declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case and P.W.5 did not state anything supporting version of P.W.1 with regard to giving of dowry or conducting mediation. By considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, trial court acquitted the respondents 1 to 3. All the three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidence is not supported and corroborated with any of the independent evidence.
As seen from the record, a notice was given by the complainant and it is marked as Ex.P.2. In that, there is no reference about the dowry paid at the time of marriage. Even in the complaint under Ex.P.3, which is the basis for registering F.I.R. and setting criminal into motion, there is no reference about payment of Rs.10,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. As seen from the complaint allegations, P.W.1 said to have addressed a letter to his father, which is marked as Ex.P.1. One of the contention raised on behalf of complainant is that A.3 wrote a letter dated 25-5-1995 to the father of P.W.1 wherein there is a mention about demand of dowry. But the father of the victim though cited as L.W.2 is not examined and the letter said to have been addressed to the father by A.3 dated 25-5- 1995 is not marked. Though there is no such material on record, the advocate for petitioner vehemently argued about the letter dated 25-5-1995 which is not part of record.
In a revision, scope of revisional court is to examine material on record and to decide whether any illegality is committed by the court below in appreciating the material on record but it can not consider the material which is not available on record. When father of victim though cited as witness is not examined and the letter said to have filed along with complaint is not marked, the revision petitioner did not raise her little finger and allowed the trial court to complete the trial and decide the matter and having not raised any objection, now taking objection in the revision, in my view is not permissible and the grounds urged challenging the judgment of the trial court are not supported by any material on record.
For these reasons, I am of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and it rightly acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 26-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.909 OF 2007 Dated 26-8-2014