T.Rajani Kumari, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1015 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                      CRL.R.C.1131 OF 2007

ORDER:-

        Heard Sri P.A.Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor.


2.      Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were tried by the II Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate,

Vijayawada in C.C.No.123 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC.

3. The allegation made by the prosecution is that the

marriage between the petitioner and 2nd respondent was

performed on 05-03-1999 at Vijayawada and thereafter, the

petitioner joined the matrimonial home at Chennai. For some

time, the accused looked after her well and after three months of

the marriage A-1 to A-3 and sister of A-1 started harassing the

petitioner. At the instigation of A2 and A-3 and their daughter,

A-1 used to harass the petitioner. It is also alleged that A-1 used

to visit the house daily in a drunken state and beat the petitioner

by demanding to bring more money from her parents, otherwise

he will marry another woman. When the mother of the petitioner

visited the matrimonial home at Chennai, A-1 to A-3 and other

family members informed her that they will look after the

petitioner well. Subsequently, A-1 secured a job at Hyderabad

and stayed there for about 3 months along with the petitioner.

Later, A-2 and his daughter went to Hyderabad and abused Pw.1

and pressed her neck and sent out from the matrimonial home.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to

5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. The plea of the accused was one

of the denial and no defence witnesses was examined on behalf

of the accused.

5. After an elaborate trial, the learned Magistrate gave a

finding stating that the evidence of Pw.1 and 2 is not consistent.

In their deposition, Pws.1 and 2 have stated that the accused

demanded Rs.10,000/-, but in their 161 Cr.P.C. statement, they

have stated that the accused demanded Rs.1 lakh. Further,

according to Pw.1, the accused beat her and she received

injuries and she has taken treatment from the Doctor. In support

of the said contention, Pw.1 did not produce any medical record

or did not examine any Doctor to substantiate her contention.

Taking into consideration the entire evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the

learned Magistrate acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 by

judgment, dated 04-05-2007.

6. As seen from the record, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 does

not inspire confidence of this court. The learned Magistrate has

taken into consideration all the aspects and acquitted the

accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In that view of

the matter, this court is of the considered view that there are no

merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as

devoid of any merit, confirming the judgment, dated 04-05-2007

in C.C.No.123 of 2003 passed by the II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 24-02-2022.

TSNR