ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is filed by a convict and it assails the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The respondent herein is the State on whose prosecution this revision petitioner was convicted.

2. Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam investigated the case and filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 alleging that they committed offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. The case was tried by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam in C.C.No.12 of 2006. After due contest and trial, the learned Magistrate by a judgment dated 08.01.2007 found A.1 guilty and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days. A.2 was found not guilty and was accordingly acquitted.

3. As against acquittal of A.2, proceedings before the learned Magistrate attained finality as none appealed against it. However, the convict/A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2007. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam after due hearing, by a judgment dated 22.05.2009 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Assailing those judgments, this revision is filed by A.1.

4. It is urged for the revision petitioner that the marriage between this revision petitioner and the alleged victim-cum-de facto complainant was not proved and that they were not spouses and in fact the victim woman was a married lady and wife of Sri Shankar Rao. Yet, both the Courts wrongly convicted A.1/revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Judgments cited before the trial Court and the first appellate Court were incorrectly appreciated. It was improbable that 16 to 17 years subsequent to the alleged marriage there could have been any harassment for dowry. That the sentence imposed is excessive. For these reasons, learned counsel argues for acquittal of the revision petitioner.

5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions raised herein were also raised before the Courts below and they were dealt with in accordance with law and the evidence on record established the guilt. There can be no justification to interfere with the well considered judgments of the Courts below.

6. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the evidence on record did not establish spousal relationship between the revision petitioner and the victim woman/wife and no offence was made out to punish the accused and the Courts below misread the evidence and misinterpreted the law requiring interference?”

7. Point:

Before the trial Court two individuals were prosecuted as accused. This revision petitioner was A.1. The other accused was a woman arrayed as A.2. According to prosecution, A.1 was running an affair with A.2 and wanted her to bring to his home as she was ready and agreed to give him money. A.1 became a drunkered and being under the influence of his relationship with A.2 he was cruel towards his wife/PW.1. He was demanding his wife to bring Rs.1,00,000/- and as she failed to bring it, he used to beat her and finally he threw her out of the house. Prosecution case further shows that between A.1 and PW.1 there was cohabitation for 17 years and they begot children also and in this episode of cruelty A.1 sent out of home his children also. To prove this case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.

8. As against that, the case of revision petitioner/A.1 was that A.2 is his wife and PW.1/victim is not his wife and children were not born for them and he never demanded money and there was no cruelty on his part.

9. In the light of those rival contentions, the evidence that was made available on record by the prosecution was examined by the Courts below. Defence did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it was o