Shaik Shakirunnisa vs Shaik Bibi John 7 Others, Rep. By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1894 AP

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY


           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1097 OF 2006


JUDGMENT:

De facto complainant-P.W.1 in C.C.No. 402 of 2004 on the file

of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali (for short, 'the

Court below'), filed the present revision before this Court questioning

the acquittal dated 28-03-2006 passed against respondent Nos. 1 to

7-accused Nos. 2 to 8.

2. On a report given by the petitioner, a case in crime No. 159 of

2004 of Tenali Taluk Police Station was registered against accused

Nos. 1 to 8 under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against

all the eight accused. The case was taken on file as C.C.No. 402 of

2004.

3. It is alleged by the petitioner that her marriage with accused

No. 1 was performed on 19-04-1998 at Kolakaluru Village. At the

time of marriage, parents of the petitioner gave an amount of

Rs.80,000/-, besides some gold articles, to accused No. 1. After

marriage, the petitioner joined matrimonial home and led happy

marital life for about one year and the couple was blessed with a

male child. Subsequently, accused No. 1 used to harass the

petitioner both physically and mentally demanding her to bring

Rs.50,000/- from her parents.

4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 and

P2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

defence.

5. The Court below, after elaborately discussing the entire

evidence on record, convicted accused No. 1 alone under Section

498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one

year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for one month. So far as accused Nos. 2 to 8 i.e.

respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein are concerned, the Court below

acquitted them.

6. This Court perused the entire evidence on record. As seen from

the evidence, no allegation was made against respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

In fact, P.W.1 admitted that respondent No. 2-accused No. 3 tried to

mediate the dispute between the petitioner and accused No. 1.

Admittedly, the petitioner along with accused No. 1 resided

separately. So far as the other accused are concerned, who are

married sisters and brothers-in-law of accused No. 1, they never

resided along with the petitioner and accused No. 1. There is

absolutely no allegation made against respondent Nos. 1 to 7. In

that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the

acquittal recorded by the Court below against respondent Nos. 1 to 7-

accused Nos. 2 to 8 and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. The criminal revision case is accordingly dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in

consequence. No costs.

_____________________ Date: 20-04-2022. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY JSK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1097 OF 2006

DATE: 20TH APRIL, 2022

JSK