CRLRC/3044/2015 of Mrs.M.P.Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2015

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-de factocomplainant aggrieved by the order dated 21.5.2015 passed inCriminal Appeal No.109 of 2013 by the Additional District & SessionsJudge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 on 6.2.2003 atMPT function hall Tandur. At the time of marriage, her parents gavetwo lakhs cash, 16 ½ tulas gold, furniture and other household articlesto A1 to A4 on the demand made by them. About 5 to 6 days aftermarriage, A1 to A4 started harassing P.W.1 physically and mentally bydemanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, a colour T.V., aRefrigerator and other articles. Four months after their marriage, P.W.1got Government teacher post at Peddemul village. As per decision ofthe elders, P.W.1 along with her husband A1 started living at Tandur. A1 to A4 continued to harass her physically and mentally for the saidadditional dowry. As she did not get additional dowry, A1 demandedto give divorce so that he would go for another marriage. A1 to A4threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences by saying that they wouldkill her, if she does not give divorce to A1. On 27.5.2010 at about 5.30hours while P.W.1 was proceeding to railway station to go to Miyapuron her official work, and when she came out from her house, all of asudden A1 to A4 attacked her by saying that “Champai Lanjenu,Peeda Pothundi”. When her brother and her father came to rescueher, A1 to A4 beat and pushed them. Their neighbours came andrescued them. A1 to A4 threatened them by saying that they would killthem, if P.W.1 does not give divorce to A1. P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the police and basing on the said report, FIR wasregistered against the accused. After completion of the investigation,the investigating officer filed the charge sheet for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. The learnedMagistrate took cognizance of the same and numbered it asC.C.No.173 of 2010.

3. During the course of trial, P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined andExs.P1 and P2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. D.Ws.1 and2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on behalf of theaccused.

4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trialCourt having found the accused not guilty, acquitted them. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed Crl.A.No.109 of2013 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed theappeal. Hence, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed this revision.

5. Earlier, whenever this matter was taken up, the learned Counselfor the petitioner sought for adjournment. This matter was adjournedseveral times at his request. Today, the learned Counsel for thepetitioner brought to the notice of this Court that he has given up noobjection to the petitioner to engage other Counsel. From this, it isapparent that the intention of the petitioner is only to drag on matter inorder to harass the respondents-accused.

6. Coming to the case on hand, both the Courts below gaveconcurrent findings. In the case of concurrent findings, unless anduntil there is any irregularity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal,the question of adjudicating the matter on factual aspects does notarise. A perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below goes toshow that the Courts below appreciated the entire material and evidence in a proper perspective. Apart from that, the material onrecord coupled with the evidence does not point out any guilt of theaccused. Therefore, the judgment under revision does not warrant anyinterference by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standdismissed.

_____________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Dated: 31[st] December, 2015Nn

Nn

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3044 of 2015

31.12.2015