Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Meera Bee, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., 3 ... on 21 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2092 of 2006
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.129 of
1998, dated 24.10.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol,
West Godavari District, the defacto complainant filed the present
Criminal Revision Case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
Marriage of the petitioner/defacto complainant was
performed with the 2nd respondent/Accused No.1 herein on 01.06.1983.
At the time of marriage, certain amount of cash and gold ornaments were
given to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, in the year 1988, 2nd respondent
got a job as B.Ed., Assistant and at that juncture, respondents 2 to 4
herein started harassing the petitioner by demanding additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/-and 2nd respondent developed illegal intimacy with another
woman working in his school at Dhavaleswaram, finally, all of them
necked her out of the matrimonial house. As there is no other go, the
petitioner lodged a report and the police registered a case in Cr.No.40 of
1998 of Palakol Town Police Station for the offence under Section
498-A IPC against respondents 2 to 4 and after completion of
investigation, they filed charge sheet. The case was taken on file as
C.C.129 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, Palakol, West Godavari District.
3. In support of the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined
and Exs.P1 & P2 were marked. The accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was denied by them. No evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the defence side.
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Magistrate acquitted them, vide Judgment dated 24.10.2006 as the
prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
5. Questioning the order of acquittal, the petitioner/Defacto
complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
6. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant
Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2nd
respondent tried to kill the petitioner by pouring kerosene on her and
she ran out of the house, thereby escaped from the clutches of the 2nd
respondent. He further contended that the trial Court without
considering the said aspect of harassment, acquitted the accused.
8. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1 is the defacto
complainant. P.W.2 is her mother. P.Ws.3 & 4 are the mediators, who
held mediation between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner. So far as
the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is concerned, it is in the nature of hearsay
and they are not witnesses for the alleged harassment made by the
respondents 2 to 4. Admittedly, no neighbours have been examined to
substantiate the alleged harassment. According to the version of P.W.1,
the accused tried to kill her by pouring kerosene on her person and she
ran out of the house, thereby escaped from the clutches of the accused.
If the said incident has really taken place, definitely the petitioner ought
to have raised cries and the same would have attracted the presence of
neighbours. But, no neighbour has been examined to substantiate the
evidence of P.W.1. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 is also silent
with regard to the said incident.
9. Furthermore, P.W.1 in her evidence admitted that the 2nd
respondent / Accused No.1 has already pronounced Talaq and informed
the same to her by sending a notice along with Mahr and Dower by the
date of the report itself i.e., 11.03.1998 and as such, the marriage was
not subsisting on the date of Ex.P1 itself. P.W.1 also did not state
anything about the earlier harassment by the accused.
10. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any valid
reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Court
below.
11. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
and the Judgment passed in C.C.No.129 of 1998, dated 24.10.2006 by
the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol, West Godavari District, is
hereby confirmed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
21st February,2022.
RPD.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2092 of 2006
Dated : 21-02-2022
RPD
