KURAPATI VIMALA VOCTORIA Vs. S. KIRAN SATHYA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A victim-cum-defacto-complainant filed this Criminal Revision under Sec. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. seeking to set- aside the judgment dtd. 12/12/2008 of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala in C.C.No.09 of 2007 whereunder the accused/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted.

(2.) The revision petitioner was employed as physical education teacher. She got married to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was a teacher in Vijaya English Medium School. Respondent No.2 was District Audit Officer and he was elder brother of Respondent No.1. The marriage between revision petitioner and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 11/2/2004 according to Christian rites since they belonged to religion of Christianity. Alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, she lodged a complaint before learned Magistrate on 27/10/2006. That was forwarded to police under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C.Thereupon, Cr.No.94/2006 was registered. After due investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Pakala Police Station filed charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and after securing the presence of A1 and A2, furnished them copies of documents. After due hearing and perusal of the record, the learned Magistrate framed charges under Ss. .498-A, 323, 509 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and under Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the victim woman testified as Pw.1 and her brother testified as Pw.2 and her sister testified as Pw.3. Two neighbours to the matrimonial home testified as Pw.4 and Pw.5. The investigating officers testified as Pw.6 and Pw.7. The complaint that was lodged by victim is Ex.P1 and the F.I.R. issued in terms of it is Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. Certain parts of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements which were confronted to Pw.3 and Pw.4 when they were questioned in the nature of cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Savings Bank Account copy pertaining to Pw.2 is Ex.P6. A photostat copy of written complaint dtd. 17/10/2006 of Pw.1 was exhibited as D1 by the defence. The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. where the accused stated that it was all a false evidence. After hearing arguments on both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate by the impugned judgment found that there was no believable evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence on record was showing facts that were improbable in their nature and found various discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with reference to place where the alleged offence took place and the learned Magistrate further stated that the evidence concerning demand for dowry was bald and vague as it neither specifies the amount that was demanded nor it specified the dates on which such demands were made. With reference to physical cruelty as against Pw.1 and also her brother Pw.2, the learned Magistrate pointed out total absence of medical evidence. Considering the evidence on record and the probabilities, the learned Magistrate found both the accused not guilty and acquitted them on all the charges. It is that judgment of the learned Magistrate against which no appeal was preferred by the State. However, the victim- cum-defacto-complainant chose to prefer this revision and calls in question the correctness of the impugned judgment. In the memorandum of grounds of revision, it is stated that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is consistent and their evidence certainly proved the guilt of the accused and findings of the trial Court on all aspects is erroneous and is against facts on record and therefore the impugned judgment shall be set-aside.

(3.) Though this Criminal Revision Petition is filed way back in the year 2009 on most of the occasions there was no representation for revision petitioner. On 9/3/2023, 15/3/2023 and 16/3/2023 despite granting opportunities none represented the revision petitioner and no arguments were submitted. For Respondent No.3/the State, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments.