ASIA SULTANA Vs. MOHD. ARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision has been preferred under Sec. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') against the judgment dtd. 23/9/2008 in C.C.No.646 of 2004 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C.,') under Sec. 248(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.'

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Sri Bodduluri Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in failing to appreciate the consistent testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 6, which clearly established that the Respondent No.1 subjected the Petitioner to cruelty and harassment under Sec. 498-A of 'the I.P.C.,' by demanding Rs.5,00,000.00. Furthermore, the Trial Court disregarded material evidence, including the love letters marked as Ex.P2 to P12, which demonstrated the Respondent No.1's deception and false promises of marriage, leading the Petitioner into a fraudulent relationship. The learned Trial Court also overlooked the fact that the Respondent No.1 committed an offence under Sec. 376 of 'the I.P.C.,' by perpetrating sexual assault on the Petitioner, when she was a minor and subsequently agreeing to marry her to evade legal consequences, only to later abandon her. The findings that Sec. 498-A of 'the I.P.C.,' was not attracted are erroneous, given the overwhelming evidence of harassment and financial coercion. The judgment is tainted with legal infirmities and ought to be revised to rectify the grave miscarriage of justice.