HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2007 Dated 2-9-2014 Between:
Kurella Kavitha.
And:
..Petitioner.
Kurella Kishan Chary and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 27-9-2007 in C.C.No.254 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet, whereunder first respondent herein is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Chityal Police Station filed charge sheet against first respondent herein alleging that marriage between revision petitioner and first respondent was performed on 5-5-1999 and at the time of marriage, parents of revision petitioner gave Rs.50,000/- cash and two tulas of gold and other household articles towards dowry and both of them lived together for about one year happily and thereafter, first respondent started harassing the revision petitioner physically and mentally and ultimately necked her out of the house, insisting her to bring additional dowry and first respondent threatened her with dire consequences of killing her by pouring kerosene and she lodged a complaint to Station House Officer Chityal who registered it as Crime No.53 of 2003 and investigation revealed that first respondent committed offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On behalf of prosecution, six witnesses are examined and one document is marked 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 prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the charges levelled against him. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred by victim-de facto complainant.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, revision petitioner and first respondent lived happily for one year and thereafter, the first respondent started harassing her for additional dowry. On behalf of prosecution, de facto complainant is examined as P.W.1 and her mother is examined as P.W.2, her maternal uncle is examined as P.W.3, her paternal uncle is examined as P.W.4, her father’s co-brother is examined as P.W.5 and a circumstantial witness- neighbour of the victim is examined as P.W.6. Out of six witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5 are family members of the victim and P.W.6 is the only independent witness. She has not stated anything to support the version of P.W.1. On the other hand, she deposed that she never witnessed any incident and she came to know about the alleged harassment only through P.W.1. Even P.Ws.2 to 5 who are close relatives of victim are not direct witnesses and they all came to know about alleged harassment through P.W.1. No doubt, there will not be any direct evidence for an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. But so far as offence under Section 4 of dowry Prohibition Act, there will be direct evidence and the victim failed to examine any one to support the same. The other witnesses i.e., Investigating Officer, and the person who registered F.I.R., elders of the marriage are not examined and considering the evidence of these witnesses, trial court held that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Though advocate for revision petitioner contended that there is ample evidence to prove the allegations against the first respondent, the same cannot be accepted because there is no supporting direct evidence to the statement of P.W.1 or supporting circumstances which can lead to the conclusion that the first respondent committed the offences alleged.
On a consideration of the material, I am of the view that learned Magistrate has not committed any error and he rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and that there are no 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 2-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1679 OF 2007 Dated 2-9-2014