wAPHC010033772007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 607 OF 2007 Between: 1. AMBORE VENKATA RAMA DEVI,, W/O NAGARAJA RAO, HOUSEWIFE, R/O NARAYANAPURAM, DACHEPALLI (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. 2. AMBORE NAGARAJA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO, TEACHER, R/O MEDARA BAZAR, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the records I Crl.A.No. 532 of 2004 on the file of the X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Narasaraopet and set aisde the Judgment dt. 4-1-07 and thereby confirmthe judgment of the trial court dt. 8-12-2004 in CC.No.48 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Gurazala. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(CRLRCMP 872 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the Judgment in CC.No. 48 of 2 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J 2002, dt. 8-12-2004 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEGAL AID 2. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY 2. - 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, in Crl.A.No.532 of 2004. 2. The brief fact of the matter is that the petitioner being the de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint with Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station, against A1 to A7 under Section 498-A read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was registered under Crime No.189 of 2001 by the concerned Police Station. 3. The brief facts suggested in the said petition of complaint are as follows- an arrange marriage was held between the de-facto complainant and the accused No.1 on 02.03.2001 at Narayanapuram, hamlet of Nadikudi. It has also been alleged that at the time of marriage, the father of PW1 gave Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and also presented gold ornaments worth of Rs.30,000/-. On the next date i.e., 03.03.2001, while the nuptial ceremony was arranged in the house of PW2, all the accused have demanded for further additional dowry from the parents of the de-facto complainant. As the parents of the de-facto complainant could not pay the additional dowry of rupees one lakh, the ritual of nuptial marriage was not performed and accused person left the place. 4 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J 4. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted by police against all the accused persons under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860. 5. The learned trial Court being the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, has acquitted all the accused persons except accused No.1 and sentenced accused No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also a fine of Rs.500/- i.e., in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Against the said order of conviction, the accused No.1 preferred an appeal. 6. The Appellate Court being the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, has disposed of the Crl.A.No.532 of 2004 by setting aside the order of conviction against accused No.1. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, being duly appointed by the Legal Services Authority, submits that offence against accused No.1 has been sufficiently proved. He further submits that the nuptial marriage could not be consummated between the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 due to only denial of accused No.1. The lady who just married with accused No.1 was denied of her marital life due to only denial of the accused No.1. He further submits that the order passed by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guruzala, is sufficiently reasoned order. The 5 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J learned Appellate Court has considered the matter on the other angle. Thus the order passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, is liable to be set aside. 8. He further submits that the evidence of PW1 as well as other evidence placed by the police authorities is sufficient to justify the order passed by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guruzala. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1/respondent submits that the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, has properly observed that the day while the nuptial marriage was settled was a day of ‘Astami’. According to the rituals, nuptial marriage cannot be performed on “Astami Day” and it is well known to all the parties that due to the said reason nuptial marriage was not conducted. 10. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has properly gone through the evidence on record and has observed that Accused No.1 being the bride groom will naturally follow the advice of his parents as it is an arranged marriage. 11. He further argued that the demand of dowry is not properly proved and there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the accused No.2-7 were acquitted by the learned Magistrate but the reason for conviction of the accused No.1 was not properly explained. 6 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the material as well as evidence of PW1 and the observations of the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, it appears that in a case initiated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is to be proved that a married lady was dealt with cruelty by her husband or her in-laws during the existence of marriage. The peculiar fact suggests that the marriage was for one day only. It is also admitted by the parties that it being an arrange marriage, the date of marriage and arrangement of nuptial marriage must have been settled prior to initiation of the marriage. 13. In this case, it appears that the allegations in the petition of complaint against all the accused persons are all general and omnibus. Because of the fact that the accused No.1 is the husband, all the allegations in the complaint cannot be placed on the shoulder of accused No.1. Moreover on considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there are reasonable doubts regarding proof of demand of dowry by accused No.1, thus, offence under Section 498-A has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubts. 14. It further appears, the learned Sessions Judge has specifically observed that the allegation of demand of dowry and the mental or physical harassment and cruelty is not sufficiently proved, the allegations against accused No.1. In my view, it appears that there are reasonable doubts in the case of prosecution against the accused No.1. Thus, I support the observation of 7 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet; the findings of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, appears to be justified. 15. I find no merit to entertain the instant criminal revision. 16. In conclusion thereof, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 30.10.2025 TJN 8 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J 40 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 607 OF 2007 Dated: 30.10.2025 TJN 9 Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2007 SS, J HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 607 OF 2007 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 15. 30.10.2025 SS,J Instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. (Vide Separate Order) ______ SS, J TJN