ORDER :

1. The instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dt.02.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.96 of 2008, passed by learned Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, which partly confirmed the judgment dated 06.08.2008 in C.C.No.90 of 2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal.

2. The petitioner herein was arrayed as A.1 and mother of the petitioner was arrayed as A.2 in C.C. No.90 of 2006. They were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). They were also directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 and A.2 also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, A.2 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

3. In the appeal, learned appellate court set aside the order of conviction and sentence against both A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted A.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and dismissed the appeal filed by A.1 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, the present revision.

4. The facts of the prosecution case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

4.1 The marriage between A.1 and PW1 was solemnized on 12.07.2002 according to the Mohammedan rites and customs. At the time of marriage, PW2 presented cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and a wrist watch as gift to A.1. After marriage, PW1 and A.1 started their marital life happily for quite a few days. Thereafter, A.1 having addiction of liquor and gambling, harassed PW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-, some gold ornaments and a house plot. A.2, along with A.1, joined in harassing PW1 by making a demand for additional dowry and also abused PW1 in filthy language on the ground that she had given birth to a female child.

4.2 Due to such continuous harassment, a meeting was held between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses in the presence of their elders. In the said meeting, the accused assured PW1 and her parents that he would not subject PW1 to any further torture or harassment for additional dowry. However, the situation never became normalised. The ill treatment to PW1 was increased day by day, A1 and A2 also threatened to kill PW1 demanding additional dowry. On 11.04.2006, the accused persons beat PW1 and, as the situation became unbearable, she left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a private complaint before the Court on 21.04.2006, which was endorsed to the police for investigation. Accordingly, Crime No.46 of 2006 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5.1 The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has led evidence against both the accused persons and that the allegations in the FIR as well as in the prosecution case are one and the same. However, learned Appellate Court, while acquitting A.2 of all the offences, has illegally convicted A.1. He further argued that learned Appellate Court should have acquitted both the accused persons.

5.2 He further submits that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and that their evidence is hearsay. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied for recording a conviction. It is further pointed out that the allegations of torture are false, general and omnibus in nature, on the basis of which convi