JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment, dated 21-01-2004, in S.C. No. 247 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby A-1 was found guilty under Section 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a, fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant; learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and perused the impugned judgment as well as the other material on record. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Appeal are as follows: P.W. 1-Complainant is the wife of 'A-1; P.W.2 is the mother of P.W. 1; P.W. 3 is the senior paternal uncle of P.W. 1; and P.W. 4 is the brother-in-law of P .W.1. The marriage of PW.1 was performed with A-1 ten years back and immediate thereto she joined with A-1 for conjugal life and during their wedlock they were blessed with two daughters. A-1 addicted to vices and started harassing P.W. 1 both physically and mentally and used to threaten that he would kill her. On 05-04-2003 at about 7.00 p.m., when P.W. 1 was talking with her family members at her house both the accused-A-1 and A_2 came, and A-2 outraged the modesty of P.W. 1. On 07-04-2003 P.W.1 presented a report to P.W. 5-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru police station who registered it as Cr. No. 170 of 2003 under Sections 498-A, 354 r/w 34 IPC. Ex. P-2 is the First Information Report. P.W. 5 started investigating the crime and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4. On the same day P.W. 5 visited the scene of offence which is located in front of the house of P.W. 1, and drafted the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.• P-3. On 08-04-2003 P. W. 5 arrested the accused and sent them to judicial custody, and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 4. The charge leveled against the appellantA-1 is that some time after their marriage, A-1 subjected his wife-Vanukuru Sivaleela to cruelty and harassment, both physically and mentally, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. On 08-04-2003 P. W. 5 arrested the accused and sent them to judicial custody, and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 4. The charge leveled against the appellantA-1 is that some time after their marriage, A-1 subjected his wife-Vanukuru Sivaleela to cruelty and harassment, both physically and mentally, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The charge leveled against A-2 is that on 05-04-2003 at about 7.00 p. m., in the house of the said Sivaleela at Gosala village A-2 used criminal force on her by touching her breast, sat on her body, torn her blouse, and outraged the modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3541PC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-3. On behalf of the accused D.W. 1 was examined and no documents were marked. 6. The Trial Court after accepting the evidence of P.W. 1 found A-1 guilty for the charge leveled against him and convicted him as stated supra, but however A-2 was found not guilty and acquitted. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by A-1. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that even if the evidence of P.W. 1 is to be accepted, that evidence is not sufficient to show that P. W. 1 was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of explanation to Section 498-A IPC and that a partofthestatementofPW.1 was disbelieved and therefore, she is not a reliable witness and furthermore on the date of the incident the mediators did not state that the appellant A-1 beat P.W. 1, and according to P.Ws. 3 and 4 the appelianVA-1 used harsh words against his wife and therefore, without considering these aspects the trial Court convicted the appellant. He therefore prays to acquit the appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant was in the habit of consuming alcohol and used to beat his wife and those aspects would come within the meaning of cruelty and the evidence of P. W. 1 is very clear that the appelianVA-1 used to beat P.W. 1. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. A-1 was found guilty under Sec. 498-A IPC. Under Section 498-A IPC., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this Section "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury of danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand". 10. Clause (a) of Explanation provides that beating would not come within the meaning of 20 cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. If such beating is likely to cause death or grave injury to the body then only Section 498-A I PC would attract. 11. The evidence of P.W. 1 would go to show that the accused used to insist her to consume alcohol after mixing with Pepsi, and the accused attempted to kill her many times. As the accused was harassing both physically 7 and mentally she was talking with the elder on 05-04-2003. Then A-1 abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately under the influence of alcohol. At that time, it is alleged that A-2 outraged her modesty. P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are said to be the elders present at the time of the incident did not say that the accused beat P.W. 1 indiscriminately. They have simply stated that the accused used harsh words. Therefore, even assuming for a moment that appellant beat P. W. 1 such beating would not come within the meaning of cruelty. It is admitted that only ten days prior to the alleged offence, P.W. 1 complained to the elders about the harassment made by the accused and prior thereto she never complained about the alleged harassment of the accused. 12. P.W. 2 is not other than the mother of P. W. 1. Admittedly, she had no personal knowledge about the harassment of A-1 towards P.W.1. 12. P.W. 2 is not other than the mother of P. W. 1. Admittedly, she had no personal knowledge about the harassment of A-1 towards P.W.1. According to her, P.W. 1 informed her but that aspect has not been stated by P.W.1. 13. Even if the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is to be accepted that A-1 was beating P.w.1 under the influence of alcohol such beating would not come within the meaning of cruelty. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are unsustainable. 14. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-A-1 in S.C. No. 247 of 1993 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, is hereby set aside, and the appellant-A-1 is acquitted for the charge leveled against him. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled and the fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.