HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.18 OF 2007 Dated 16-6-2014 Between:
Lakkimsetty Naga Malleswari.
Petitioners.
And:
Lakkimsettyi Tulasi Ramana Babu and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.18 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against the judgment dated 29-9- 2006 in C.C.No.30 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Guntur whereunder respondents 1 to 5 herein are acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C Aggrieved by the acquittal, de facto complainant-victim-P.W.1 preferred this revision.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Revision petitioner lodged a private complaint which was forwarded to the S.I. of Police, Guntur and after investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against respondents 1 to 5 herein for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and during trial examined six witnesses on behalf of prosecution and marked two documents. No witnesses are examined on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and no documents are marked. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused i.e., respondents 1 to 5 herein not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquitted them of the said charge. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
According to revision petitioner, the lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted the accused i.e., respondents 1 to 5.
According to the revision petitioner, trial court failed to notice that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent, reliable and trustworthy and in spite of that, acquitted the accused. It is further contended that the evidence of revision petitioner is consistent and the same is supported and corroborated with other witnesses and harassment is duly proved.
Heard both sides.
The main argument of advocate for revision petitioner is that P.W.3 deposed in his evidence that A.1 slapped P.W.1 in his presence on one occasion and that aspect would clearly reveal that there was harassment to the revision petitioner. He further submitted that the evidence on record would also reveal that all the accused insisted P.W.1 to sign F.D.R. for withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000/-or in the alternative to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry and this part of evidence would attract ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C. but the court below failed to consider the same.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that trial court has rightly appreciated evidence on record and as the complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that there were F.D.Rs. and the accused has insisted her to sign on such F.D.Rs. and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, the marriage was performed on 16-2-2002 at N.G.O’s Kalyanamandapam as per Hindu rites and customs and that accused demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- for which there was a mediation and it was agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- and as per that agreement, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited in the shape of F.D.R. in the joint names of P.W.1 and A.1 and remaining was paid in cash.
According to prosecution, on 16-2-2003, all the accused beat the complainant i.e., revision petitioners herein and took away gold ornaments and necked out her from the matrimonial house, as she refused to sign the withdrawal form for encashing the F.D.Rs. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of necking out, they have demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and insisted P.W.1 to bring same from her parents to allow her to join the matrimonial home. According to prosecution, there was mediation and final mediation was on 8-8-2004 and as the accused were adamant, the matter is not settled and thereafter A.1 filed a petition for divorce whereas revision petitioner filed marriage O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights.
Admittedly, both the O.Ps are dismissed after disposal of this criminal case and appeals are pending before this court against the dismissal of those two O.Ps. Out of the six witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is father of de facto complainant, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the mediators who held negotiations and P.W.5 is brother of P.W.1 and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, P.Ws.3 and 4 are not eye witnesses to the alleged harassment insisting P.W.1 to sign on the withdrawal form for encashing F.D.Rs. The only solitary statement of P.W.3 is that A.1 slapped P.W.1 in his presence on one occasion. He has not given date, time and place where the said slapping took place and this incident was not spoken to by P.W.1. Even there is no reference to this incident in the complaint. Though it is specifically alleged that joint F.D.Rs. for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- were obtained, the revision petitioner failed to produce any evidence in respect of those F.D.Rs. either by summoning the bank authorities or by producing copies of F.D.Rs. No steps are taken to produce those documents to support the version of P.W.1 with regard to F.D.R. amounts and the alleged harassment for encashing the F.D.Rs. Trial court has elaborately discussed evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and held that prosecution failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused i.e., respondents 1 to 5 herein and acquitted them.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial court and on the other hand, it rightly acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to produce evidence supporting the complaint averments.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the acquittal recorded against the respondents. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-6-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.18 OF 2007 Dated 16-6-2014