ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment passed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Crl.A.No.91 of 2006 dated 23.01.2009 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498- A of I.P.C. imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile(PCR), Adilabad in C.C.No.465 of 2005, dated 15.12.2006.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.09.2003 at 9.00 hours, the complainant named Akula Padma came to police station and lodged report stating that she got married with one Akula Vasanth Kumar of Adilabad on 12.03.2000. At the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, half tula gold and other house hold articles as dowry. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. Later, at the instigation of her mother-in-law, her husband started beating for want of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and subjected her to physical torture and he even driven her out of the house on 04.08.2003. She expressed the inability of her parents for giving any additional amounts. Many a time her parents requested him to lead happy life with complainant but he did not change his attitude and continued harassment. A panchayath was held on 18.08.2003 in which the caste elders of both sides tried to compromise but her husband did not accept their version. Hence, the complainant lodged a report for taking necessary action against the accused No.1 and 2.

3. The accused were tried for the offence under Section 498- A of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the petitioner/accused No.1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

4. On appeal preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1 against the said conviction and sentence, the learned I- Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred this criminal revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.Sharan Reddy and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state and perused the record.

6. It is mainly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the fact that the petitioner/accused No.1 harassed the complainant and in the absence of any evidence it is not safe to base a conviction. He further contended that the Courts below erred in relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not at all attracted in this case; PW.1 was never referred to hospital by police and the prosecution failed to prove that there is physical harassment by the petitioner/accused No.1 and for those reasons, the conviction is not sustainable.

7. A perusal of the material available on record, PW-1 deposed in her cross-examination that her parents are not having any own lands and further deposed that petitioner/Accused No.1 is having a house in Hyderabad and that he used to run a school and that he is also having lands in Adilabad. She further deposed that Accused No.2 used to do job as ANM and that petitioner/Accused No.1 got the job as Panchayath Secretary after voluntary retirement of Accused No.2. PW1 further deposed that there was no mention in the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C. statement regarding the attempt made by petitioner/Accused No.1 to get married second time. PW1 further deposed that she never went to hospital for treatment in view of the injuries caused by petitioner/Accused No.1 and she was not referred to the hospital by the police; she did not reveal about her attempt to commit suici