JUDGMENT :

DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— Crl. A. No. 1901 of 1999 was filed by the complainant. The appellant filed a private complaint against 21 accused alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 494, 323, 506, 341 read with 34 I.P.C. and it was numbered as C.C. No. 56 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur Charges for the offences are under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 341, 506(II) of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against all the accused. They pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed for trail. During the pendency of the case, A-20 died, therefore, the case against him stood abated on 14-02-1996.

2. The complainant, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and did not mark any documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side.

3. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences covered by the charges and recorded their acquittal through the Judgment dated 05-10-1999. The complainant, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, preferred this Appeal challenging the validity and legality of the acquittal of the accused. The case of the prosecution leading to the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 169 of 1996 is briefly as follows:

The marriage of P.W. 1 was solemnized with A-1 according to Hindu rites and caste custom on 26-05-1991 at Upalapadu village at the residence of A-1. Subsequent to the marriage, A-1 developed vices and started illicit intimacy with one Tatineni Radha i.e., A-2 and declared that he wants to marry A-2 for getting more dowry from her. On 14-02-1993, P.W. 1 and her father sent P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and one P. Ramana Rao to Uppalapadu village for mediation at about 6.00 p.m. and when they went to the house of A-1, they found the arrangements of Shamiyanas, white washing of the house and new paint to the door frames. They approached A-1, A-3 and A-4 and told them the purpose of their visit. The accused replied that A-1 was going to marry A-2 who was already pregnant and the marriage Muhurtham was fixed at about 8.50 p.m. on the same night. The mediators returned to Macherla and informed the same to her father. Immediately P.W. 1, her father and the mediators went to Uppalapadu at about 8.45 p.m. and on reaching the scene of offence, they found a Purohit chanting mantras, A-3, A-4, A-7 and A-8 sitting behind A-1 and A-2 along with other accused. On seeing P.W. 1 and her father, A-3 to A-21 surrounded them and all of them abused her in filthy language and threatened that they would beat her. When P.W. 1 and her parents requested A-7 and A-8 not to destroy the life of P.W. 1, A-15 and A-20 asked them not to make any nuisance and pushed them to a distance. In the meanwhile, the marriage rites were performed and A-1 came against her shouting at the top that he would do as he likes and who are they to question him. He also abused P.W. 1 as ‘Lanja’ stating that there was marital relationship between himself and her at any time. He slapped her by questioning as to how she came to that place. The other accused also abused her and her father and they were restrained from proceeding towards Shamiyanas. Subsequently, a complaint was given at Veldurti Police Station, but the police did not take any action, therefore, they filed the private complaint.

4. The case of the defence is that he never married A-2 during the subsistence of the marriage with P.W. 1. No arrangements have been made for the marriage and the complainant and P.W. 2 foisted the case against them.

5. In the light of the contentions, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for any of the offences mentioned in the charges?

6. The complainant as P.W. 1 deposed that her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and caste customs. During the subsistence of her marriage with A-1, on 14-08-1993, A-1 again mar