THILARI NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner-1st accused filed the revision against the Judgment of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.61 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam in convicting the revision petitioner-1st accused for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1997 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) One Thilari Naga Malleswari married the revision petitioner- Thilari Narayana Rao on 22-3-1989 in Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Guduru. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant gave Rs.35,000/- to A.1 to A.3 towards dowry and Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses. Seven months after their marriage, the only brother of the de facto complainant died. Thereafter, the accused began to demand the victim to bring more dowry from her parents. They used to beat her. In the year 1991, A.1 got employment as Constable in Police Department. The de facto complainant accompanied by her husband and they lived at Nellore and Hyderabad where A.1 worked. During the said period, A.1 continued to harass his wife demanding her to bring more dowry. The de facto complainant wrote letters to her parents mentioning the harassment meted out to her at the hands of her husband. In the year 1992, the de facto complainant came to her parents house for delivery. The de facto complainant informed her parents about the harassment. The matter was placed before the elders, Allam Narasimha Rao and Thota Nancharayya and in their presence A.1 gave an undertaking on a stamped paper to the effect that he will not do any harm to his wife. On 1-8-1993, A.1 brought his wife from Hyderabad to Guduru stating that they have to attend the marriage of his brother. He left his wife at her parents house at Guduru stating that he will not take her back until she brought more dowry from her parents. On 15-12-1993 when she went to her parents-in-law, A.2 to A.4 did not allow her to stay in their house. On 31-1-1994, a report was given to the police and a case in Cr.No.3 of 1994 was registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. and after investigation the complaint was laid before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam. A charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. was framed against the accused and to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. By the time of trial the victim died. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the de facto complainant. PW.3 is an independent witness. PWs.4 and 5 are the mediators and they turned hostile. PW.6 is the investigating officer. The learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Krishna after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offence under Section 498-A IPC against A.1 and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced. The learned Magistrate found A.2 to A.4 not guilty and they were acquitted. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the 1st accused filed Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1997 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Krishna and the learned District and Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction against A.1, and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the State with regard to the acquittal of A.2 to A.4 was also dismissed.