ARAMATI RAMA DEVI Vs. ARAMATI REDDAPPA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case has been filed by the defacto-complainant challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crl. A. No. 42 of 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Cuddapah, preferred against the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty in C.C. No. 431 of 1996 dated 22-02-2001.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are as under: The Petitioner/defacto-complainant filed a compliant before the police alleging that A-1 married her eight years prior to the date of occurrence and demanded for more dowry apart from filing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. She was granted maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month. While so, accused No. 1 without divorcing defacto- complainant married A-2 daughter of A-3 at Tirumala on 05-06-1996 with the assistance of A-3 to A-12. On such compliant being filed police registered a case in Cr. No. 63 of 1996 under Section 494 IPC and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 494 IPC against A-1, and Section 494 read with 149 IPC against A-2 to A-12. The defacto- complainant herself was examined as P.W. 1; her father was examined as P.W. 2. Sankarapu Vijayasekhar, who is the eyewitness to the incident, was examined as P.W. 3; the Inspector who investigated the crime was examined as P.W. 4; Purohit who performed the marriage of A-1 and A-2 was examined as P.W. 5 and the Superintendent of Purohit Sangam was examined as P.W. 6. The lower Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence found that A-1 is guilty for the offence under Section 494 IPC, whereas A-2 to A-6 under Section 494 read with 149 (PC and A-7 to A12 are found not guilty of offence under Section 494 r/w 149 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted. Aggrieved by the same accused Nos. 1 to 6 carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoti upholding the contentions and held that in view of bar envisaged under Section 198 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of offence under Section 494 IPC except upon a compliant made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Hence, this revision.

(3.) After notice on condone delay petition to the respondent/accused delay was condoned. With the consent of both sides the matter was taken up for final hearing. Head both sides.