The prosecution must prove the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), came to be filed by the petitioner namely Venigandla Rajyalakshmi, who was the de-facto complainant and examined as prosecution witness No.1 (PW.1) in C.C. No.28 of 2007, on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’), against the judgment, dated 01.04.2009, where under the learned Magistrate found the first respondent/sole accused, not guilty of for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’)

and acquitted him under Section 248 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.8 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 341 of IPC. The case of the prosecution, before the Court below, as per the averments in the charge sheet filed by the Police, is as follows:

The marriage of the de-facto complainant i.e., LW.1-

Venigandla Rajyalakshmi was performed with the accused on 27.04.1990. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant presented cash of Rs.25,000/- to the accused as dowry, 20 sovereigns of gold to her and cash of Rs.10,000/- towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanam to the sister of the accused. They also presented Ac.1.00 cents of wet land to her towards Pasupu Kunkuma apart from the marriage expenses of Rs.50,000/-. The accused used to beat the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry. He developed illicit intimacy with one Nagamani. Ten years after the marriage, accused necked out her from the house as such she went to her parent’s house at Hyderabad. When the mother of the accused passed away, she returned to the house of the accused. At that time, the father-in- law of LW.1 and others admonished her. Then, she stayed at her in-laws house. Thereafter, her father-in-law also passed away within a span of three months. Accused was addicted to bad vices and developed illicit intimacy with one Nagamani. He started harassing her and subjected her to mental torture. He harassed the de-facto complainant and also her children. On one occasion accused also leaked the gas cylinder so as to kill her and also demanded her to bring money. She informed the same to her parents, who pacified the issue. Then, she stayed with the accused. He threatened the de-facto complainant that he will marry one Nagamani if she failed to bring additional dowry. On 10.01.2007, she left Ponnur and went to Hyderabad to her parent’s house during Sankranthi vacation and she came back on 21.01.2007 to Ponnur along with her children and father. Then the accused necked her out and her children and, in spite of requests, he did not allow them to enter into the house. On 21.01.2007, she gave report to Police, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate, Ponnur took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and, after completing necessary formalities, framed charge under Section 498-A IPC and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was subjected to 313 Cr.P.C examination with reference to the incriminating circumstances for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence but filed certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No.123 of 2006, which is shown as Ex.D-1 in the Memo of evidence of the judgment of the trial Court.

6. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidenc