( 1 ) THE revision petitioner stands convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian penal Code ( the IPC for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further sentenced to pay a fine or Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, by her judgment dated 10-11-1998 in C. C. No. 411 of 1997 and the same has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1998 dated 11-5-2000.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the 1st accused. the case against the petitioner was that this his marriage with PW-1 was performed on 25-5-1989 at Tirupati and that at the time of marriage on demand from the petitioner, PW-3 the father of PW-1 paid an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards dowry and gave six tulas gold jewellery to PW-1. The petitioner and PW-1 lived together happily for two years and that in the year 1991, the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with A4 and started harassing and ill-treating PW-1. PW-1 therefore, gave a report against the petitioner in IV Town Police Station in the year 1992 and it ended in compromise when the petitioner/a1 had given an undrtaking that he would live with PW-1 properly. A2 to A4 also gave a similar undertaking. However, the petitioner continued his illicit contacts with A4 with the connivance of A2 and A3 and kept her at Naupada and was making periodical visits. Subsequently, a male child was born to A4. The petitioner not only nelgected PW-1 and her daughter, but also insisted her to live in harmony with A4, and threatened to kill PW-1 and her daughter, if she disagreed with his proposal. The petitioner misappropriated the gold jewellery of PW-1 and frittered away the sale proceeds. He used to insist PW-1 to take divorce and beat her in that connection and further harassed to bring more money from her parents towards dowry.

( 3 ) AT the time of trial eight witnesses were examined in support of the charges under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Exs. P1 and P2 were got marked. A2 and 3 were discharged and A1 and A4 alone were tried for both the offences. At the culmination of the trial, the trial Court after having considered the evidence on record convicted the petitioner alone under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid and acquitted him of the other charge under Section 506 of the IPC. A4 was also acquitted of both the charges.

( 4 ) THE evidence available on record is that PWs-1 to PW-1 is the defacto complainant. PW-2 is the house owner where the revision petitioner and PW-1 used to reside for rent. PW-3 is the father of PW-1. PW-4 is a mediator for the settlement of dispute between the petitioner and PW-1. PW-5 is a neighbour of PW-1. PW-6 is another elder and PWs-7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers.

( 5 ) A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 shows that after the marriage, she and the petitioner lived together happily for two years till the birth of her daughter and thereafter, the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with A4 and deserted her and her daughter and that when she reported the matter to the elders they asked the petitioner to sever his connection with A4, but he did not do so and therefore the elders advised her to lodge a report with the police and that on the adviceof the Mahila Mandali, she lodged a report with the police, wherein a compromise was affected. The petitioner admitting his guilt undertook that he would look after PW-1 properly. A4 also gave an undertaking that she would leave the petitioner and go to her native place. Thereafter, PW-1 and the petitioner lived happily in a rented house for a period of nine months. During that period, he met with an accident and after he became healthy again, left PW-1 at the house and therefore, she had to lodge a report to the police in Ex. P1. The evidence further shows that A1 used to insist PW-1 to live in harmony with A4. There has been no w