The court affirmed that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine the trial Court's decision if overall credibility is maintained.

ORDER

1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/P.W.1 assailing the Judgment dated 25.03.2003 passed in C.C.No.420 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short, „the trial Court‟) whereby the trial Court acquitted the 1^st Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

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 brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows: P.W.1, A. Vijaya Prasamsa, and the accused were in love and subsequently got married on 02.05.2000 at the Srikakulam Registrar‟s Office without the knowledge or consent of their elders. Later, their marriage was solemnized once again on 16.05.2001 at Annavaram Devasthanam in the presence of their parents, during which the accused was given ten tulas of gold along with other articles. Following the marriage, the accused took P.W.1 to Srikakulam, where he began demanding a dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, a motorcycle, and additional household items. Upon her failure to fulfil these demands, the accused allegedly subjected her to both physical and mental harassment. On 18.06.2001, he is said to have attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene on her, after which she returned to her parental home. Subsequently, on 20.06.2001, the accused came to Visakhapatnam, assaulted her, and issued threats to her and her parents with dire consequences. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a criminal case was registered against the accused.

4. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, took cognizance under section 498-A IPC against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.Р.С.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet averments were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he had no defence witnesses.

7. The trial court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, vide its Judgment dated 25.03.2003 in C.C.No.420 of 2001, and acquitted the accused.

8. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal, the unsuccessful defacto complainant/P.W.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment dated 25.03.2003 in C.C.No.420 of 2001 passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is sustainable in law?

POINT

10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/P.W.1 contends that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is argued that the trial Court failed to give due weight to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and