APHC010176862011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1704/2011 Between: 1. S.ABDUL RAHIMAN,, S/O ALLABAKSH, R/O D.NO.884-A, HANUMAN NAGAR, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.77 of 2011 of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Gooty, dated 16.08.2011. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2544 OF 2011 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in the Order passed by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapur at Gooty in S.C.No.528 of 2009 as confirmed in the Judgment in Crl.A.No.77 of 2011,dated 16.08.2011 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Gooty, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1704 OF 2011 ORDER: Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction against the present petitioner under Section 498-A IPC by the learned appellate Court in Crl.A.No.77 of 2011, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 2. Initially, the petitioner and the father of the petitioner are charged with the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 307 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the A.P.Dowry Prohibition Act. After holding trial by the trial Court, the petitioner/A1 found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and A2 found not guilty for all the offences; A1 was also found not guilty for the other offences. Against such order of conviction, A-1 approached the learned appellate Court, wherein the learned appellate Court has confirmed the order of conviction, hence, this Revisional Case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC against the present petitioner. He further submits that the prosecution has adduced five witnesses to prove the case, amongst them, PW.1 i.e, de facto complainant/wife has only supported the prosecution case. He submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has held that the evidence of PW.2, who is brother of PW.1, cannot be considered as hearsay 4 witness and other witness it conjointly considered also cannot prove the guilt of the present petitioner for the charge under Section 498-A IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other cases, i.e., maintenance case and domestic violence case between the parties are settled before the Lok Adalat. Now de facto complainant is residing with another person thus the order of conviction confirmed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court convicted the accused basing on the evidence of PW.1 and the complaint, which itself suggests that A1 has committed offence of harassment and cruelty upon the lady. He further submits that evidence regarding matrimonial dispute occurred within the four corners of the household, thus, there is no possibility of eyewitness in this type of cases. In this case PW.1 cannot be disbelieved. He further submits that learned appellate Court has successfully scanned the evidences on record and passed the impugned order and confirmed the conviction on the petitioner. There is no merit in the instant criminal revision, for which, the criminal revision case is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecution case has narrated that the marriage between the PW.1 and A1 was solemnised in the month of December, 2007. It also drawn in the 5 prosecution that at the time of marriage, the parents of PW.1 gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and gold ornaments weighing 10 tulas and a motorcycle to the accused as dowry. It is further prosecution that PW.1 and A1 was living peacefully for six months. Thereafter, A1 asked PW.1 to bring additional dowry as 3 and ½ thulas of gold bracelet from her parents. It is further prosecution case that PW.1 on such demand informed the same to her parents but they agreed to give Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, A1 started harassing and tortured PW.1 for the demand of additional dowry. One pachayat was held in the locality in presence of the elders of PW.1 an A1; they advised to set up the separate family, consequently A1 and PW.1 were residing separately from their matrimonial home. 8. This, being the prosecution case, to prove the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution is duly bound to show that there are specific torture and harassment upon PW.1 (married lady) by her husband (A1) on the demand of additional dowry. Whether demand of additional dowry was made or not, in this particular case, PW.1 was deposed that there is an additional dowry demand of A1 and after such demand has been made, she has informed the said demand to her parents. Learned trial Court has observed that the evidence of PW.2 cannot be disbelieved because it is hearsay evidence. I find no evidence on the point that PW.1 ever informed such harassment to her parents. In this particular case, it can understand that PW.1 being the victim/marital lady, herself, appears before the trial Court, deposed that there is demand of additional dowry but such fact need corroboration. De 6 facto complainant, on the basis of hostile intent against her husband, a criminal case, thus, it cannot stand on the basis of her own wish or her own evidence. 9. The evidence of PW.1/de facto complainant should have to be corroborated, by the attending facts and circumstances, which may not be an eye witness to support such circumstances, but consequential witness which can corroborate the evidence of PW.1. In this particular case, I find no evidence of harassment on additional dowry and torture of PW.1/de facto complainant, except the PW.1, parents of PW.1 did not depose to prove demand of dowry or torture upon PW.1. Recording conviction on the basis of solitary testimony of the married lady, in the case under Section 498-A IPC, appears to me, not made justifiable one. 10. Considering the same, recording of conviction and sentence against the present petitioner by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, appears to me improper. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, under the above observation, the order of conviction is hereby set aside. 11. The petitioner is exonerated from the charges and acquitted. The petitioner be set at liberty in this case. 12. The sureties stands in favour of the petitioner are also discharged. 7 13. Consequently, the instant Criminal Revision Case appears to me meritorious and the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 20.11.2025 SPP 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1704 of 2011 20.11.2025 SPP