ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., by accused no. 1, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court, which was confirmed in appeal, for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under:- i. Originally, A1 to A7 were tried in C.C. No. 125 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By its Judgment, dated 02.11.2001, the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, while acquitting A2 to A7, convicted A1 alone for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. He was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the same, A1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2011 before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur. By its Judgment, dated 20.03.2012, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed. 4. The facts, in issue, are as under: (i) A1 was working as a Police Constable in 10th Battalion. APSP, ‘F’ Coy. His marriage was performed with PW1 at B.V. Peta village as per Muslim traditions and customs on 11.08.2001. It is said that, at the time of marriage, Rs.1,50,000/-was given to A1 as dowry and also 25 grams of gold to PW1 towards paspukumkuma, in the presence of caste elders. (ii) After marriage, PW1 joined A1 at Kurnool, where she was treated properly for three months. It is said that, at the time of marriage, Rs.1,50,000/-was given to A1 as dowry and also 25 grams of gold to PW1 towards paspukumkuma, in the presence of caste elders. (ii) After marriage, PW1 joined A1 at Kurnool, where she was treated properly for three months. It is said that, A2 to A7 who are the close relatives of A1 used to instigate A1 to demand for more amount towards additional dowry and used to ill-treat her. PW1 informed the same to her brother [LW4] who visited her at Kurnool and tried to pacify the matter by paying Rs.15,000/-, but, there was no change in the attitude of the accused. It is said that, A1 used to torture PW1 stating that he would have got a dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/-had he married another lady. Seeing the harassment, the father of PW1 paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-through LW3 as additional dowry and requested accused not to harass PW1. (iii) It is said that, after the birth of first child, A1 sent PW1 to her parent’s house as he was suffering with hernia. PW1 was not allowed to stay with accused for more than six months. Then a complaint was given to the Commandant, 10th Bn. APSP, who admonished the accused and later PW1 was sent to lead marital life with A1. It is said that, A1 did not mend his behavior and continued to harass PW1 and ill-treat her physically and mentally. As her health condition deteriorated, PW2 brought PW1 to her house when she was seventh month pregnant. Later, a male child was born on 12.02.2006. Thereafter, A1 sent a notice to PW1 seeking divorce. After receipt of the said notice, a report came to be lodged by PW1, which came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 19/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. PW6 took up investigation and examined PW1 to PW5 and later filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 125/2007. 5. On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. 5. On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. However, they got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. 7. Basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW4, the trial court convicted the accused, which was confirmed in appeal, as referred to supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by A1, who is the husband of PW1. 8. Sri. K. Rathangapani Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, there are number of circumstances to indicate that the harassment alleged against the petitioner is false and baseless. Since, the entire harassment relates to demand of additional dowry, there is no evidence on record to show that the amount was paid to A1 or that he harassed PW1 to get additional dowry. He further pleads that, the present report came to be lodged after receipt of notice from A1 seeking divorce. In other words, his plea is that the evidence of four witnesses, if read together would show that their version is inconsistent with each other and even if the evidence if taken as a whole, ingredients constituting an offence under Section 498-A are not made out. 9. The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 being consistent with each other cannot be disbelieved. He would contend that, the evidence of all the four witnesses is consistent with regard to the demand for additional dowry, receipt of Rs.15,000/-from the mother and Rs.20.000/-from the brother of PW1. Such being the position, it cannot be said that ingredients constituting offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC are not proved. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC? 11. Such being the position, it cannot be said that ingredients constituting offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC are not proved. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC? 11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the evidence of PW1 to PW5. But, before referring to the said evidence, it is to be noted here that the wife of accused no. 1 who was examined as PW1 died on 06.12.2019 and the son of the petitioner, is with his in-laws. It is also to be noted here that the date of marriage was on 11.08.2001; the child was born on 12.02.2006 and the report was lodged on 15.05.2006, after receipt of notice in O.P. filed by A1, in the month of December 2005. 12. Keeping these circumstances in the background, it would be appropriate to appreciate the evidence of PW1 to PW4. 13. PW1 is the victim, who lodged a report against all the seven accused, who are the husband, in-laws, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. According to PW1, her marriage was performed with A1 on 11.08.2001 at B.V. Peta. At the time of marriage, A1 was working as Police Constable in 10th Battalion, Beechpalli. It is said that, at the time of marriage, Rs.1,50,000/-cash, 25 grams of gold and other household articles were given to A1. After marriage, PW1 joined A1 at Kurnool to lead marital life. It is said that, A1 treated her well only for six months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws harassed her to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The same was informed to her parents and her brother. After that, her brother [PW4] gave Rs.15,000/-to A2 and A3 with a request to look after PW1 well. It is said that, in-spite of receipt of money, A1 and in-laws used to harass her and beat her stating that Rs.15,000/-was not sufficient. Information about the said harassment was again given to her parents, who sent a sum of Rs.20,000/-through PW3 to be paid to in-laws. Thereafter, A1 underwent hernia operation. At that time, he sent PW1 to her parents house and made her stay at her parents house for six months. Information about the said harassment was again given to her parents, who sent a sum of Rs.20,000/-through PW3 to be paid to in-laws. Thereafter, A1 underwent hernia operation. At that time, he sent PW1 to her parents house and made her stay at her parents house for six months. It is said that, a report was given to the 10th Commandant of A1, who admonished A1 for not taking back PW1. Pursuant thereto, both of them lived happily. While she was in seventh month pregnancy, she went to her parents house, where, she stayed till she gave birth to a son. It is said that, after the birth of son, A1 came to her parents house, beat her in the presence of her mother demanding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-and also insisted to marry her sister. Later, a report came to be lodged by PW1. 14. From the evidence in chief of PW1, it is clear that, specific dates and months, as to when the accused beat PW1 are not mentioned. Even payment of Rs.15,000/-and Rs.20,000/-was said to have been made to the in-laws. The evidence in chief of PW1 makes is clear that no amount was paid to A1. Except making a bald statement that her husband and in-laws harassed her, no specific month, leave alone the date was referred to in the chief affidavit. The only allegation which carries adjudication is, A1 beating PW1, after the birth of her son, in the presence of her mother. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, all the seven accused harassed her after three months of marriage. It was also elicited in the cross-examination that, additional dowry amount was given by her father and brother, but, nobody was present at the time of giving additional dowry. She further admits that, she does not know the year in which her father and brother gave additional dowry. It would be useful to extract the admissions of PW1, which are as under:- “It is true after completion of 3 months of my marriage A1 to A7 harassed me. It is true we gave complaint to the police after the 3 years of marriage. It is true we gave additional amount dowry to the accused two times. It is true additional amount was given my father and brother but there nobody was present at the time of giving additional amount. It is true we gave complaint to the police after the 3 years of marriage. It is true we gave additional amount dowry to the accused two times. It is true additional amount was given my father and brother but there nobody was present at the time of giving additional amount. I do not know the year in which year my father and brother given additional dowry. It is true I gave a complaint to the police but I did not produce any receipt along with before the court, since, the police compromised the matter between us”. 15. In the cross-examination, it was further elicited that though she went to the police station, the police did not register any crime. Hence, she approached the Superintendent of Police and on his instructions, the police registered the crime. She further admits that, she received a notice of divorce from A1. She did not receive any amount by way of demand draft. She admits filing of M.C. No. 13/2006 against A1. To a suggestion that the accused did not demand any money or harassed her was denied. She further admits in her cross-examination that the Commandant of Accused came to B.V. Peta Police Station. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW1, the reason for harassment appears to be non-payment of additional dowry. The allegation is that her husband and in-laws demanded additional dowry and the said amount was paid to in-laws. When A2 and A3 were acquitted of the said charge, question is to what extent can the evidence of PW1 be believed to show that A1 alone was responsible for demand of additional dowry, more so, when the allegations of harassment made are omnibus in nature without any specific instance, even with regard to beating, which took place after the birth of the child. In-fact, as observed by us earlier, PW1 in her cross-examination states that, after completion of three months of marriage, all the accused i.e. A1 to A7 used to harass her. 17. PW2 who is the mother of PW1 deposed in line with the evidence of PW1, with regard to payment of Rs.15,000/-of cash. A perusal of the evidence of PW2 would show that her evidence in chief is a complete improvement to what PW1 has deposed. 17. PW2 who is the mother of PW1 deposed in line with the evidence of PW1, with regard to payment of Rs.15,000/-of cash. A perusal of the evidence of PW2 would show that her evidence in chief is a complete improvement to what PW1 has deposed. Though, she speaks about the marriage, payment of Rs.15,000/-cash, but, however, with regard to gold, she deposed about giving only 10 tulas. In her evidence in chief, PW2 deposed that, all the accused harassed PW1 stating that they gave only Rs.15,000/-in-stead of Rs.1,00,000/-as per their wish. This piece of harassment, namely, agreeing to pay Rs.1,00,000/-was never spoken to by PW1. Later, A2 and A3 insisted PW2 to take PW1 along with her to B.V. Peta, as such, PW2 brought her to B.V. Peta. Her evidence in chief is silent with regard to payment of Rs.15,000/-by her son. 18. In the cross-examination, PW2 admits that, PW1 and A1 lived happily for a period of one year of their marriage, which is contrary to the evidence in chief of PW1, wherein, PW1 deposed that, both of them lived happily for a period of six months. She further admits that, she used to visit PW1 now and then to see her. She further admits that, she does not remember as to the number of times additional dowry was given to the accused. But, however, admits that, all the affairs were looked after by her son. In cross-examination, it has been elicited that an amount of Rs.20,000/-was given to the accused in the presence of her brother. She further states that, the said amount was given to the parents of the accused. However, to a suggestion that the accused did not demand any additional dowry was denied. She further admits that, she gave a report to the police when accused no. 1 beat PW1 at B.V. Peta. But the report given by PW2 has not seen the light of the date. On the other hand, the report which is marked as FIR, is the one, which was given by PW1 on 15.05.2006. To a suggestion that, PW2 did not allow the accused to see his son was denied by her. However, she admits that, she did not state the same to the police under 161 Cr.P.C., statement and in Ex.P1. 19. On the other hand, the report which is marked as FIR, is the one, which was given by PW1 on 15.05.2006. To a suggestion that, PW2 did not allow the accused to see his son was denied by her. However, she admits that, she did not state the same to the police under 161 Cr.P.C., statement and in Ex.P1. 19. From the evidence of this witness also it is clear that the allegations of harassment alleged to have been made by A1 are vague and ominous in nature. As seen from the evidence, the ground on which the prosecution sought conviction is harassment for payment of additional dowry of Rs.15,000/-and Rs.20,000/-. Though, in chief, PW2 does not speak about payment of Rs.20,000/-, but, in cross-examination, it has been elicited that the said amount was paid to the parents of A1. If really the demand was made by A1, definitely PW2 or PW4 would have deposed about payment of the said amount to A1, more so, when all of them were staying at different places. 20. Further, according to prosecution, the allegation of harassment, which is specific, is at the time when accused visited B.V. Peta and beat PW1 in the presence of PW2. But, in her cross-examination, she admits that, immediately after the incident she lodged a report, but for the reasons best know, the said report did not see the light of the day. On the other hand, the report which is marked as Ex.P1 is the report given by PW1. 21. Coming to the evidence of PW3, who is no other than the brother of PW2. His evidence in chief, toes in line with that of PW1 and PW2. However, his evidence is also omnibus and vague in nature, attributing acts of harassment without giving any specific month, date or period, when such harassment took place. In cross-examination, he admits that, he is a resident of B.V. Peta, whereas, PW1 and accused were residing at Kurnool. He admits in cross-examination that, he did not state before the police about giving Rs.1,50,000/-to A1. He admits that, PW1 called him from Kurnool and informed about A1 harassing. On a scrutiny of his evidence, it is clear that his evidence is hearsay and the same does not refer to payment of dowry or demand for dowry. 22. He admits in cross-examination that, he did not state before the police about giving Rs.1,50,000/-to A1. He admits that, PW1 called him from Kurnool and informed about A1 harassing. On a scrutiny of his evidence, it is clear that his evidence is hearsay and the same does not refer to payment of dowry or demand for dowry. 22. As regards the evidence of PW4, his evidence in chief is totally contrary to the evidence. He in his evidence deposed that, accused harassed PW1 on the ground that, she was not blessed with a child. His evidence is that, he gave Rs.15,000/-to A2. After two months, A2 called him and told that as PW1 was not blessed with a child, made a proposal to give his younger sister to A1 and perform marriage with A1. This part of evidence was never spoken to by PW1 to PW3. His evidence is that, A2 called his mother and informed that gold given by them was not pure and demanded to replace them with new gold, on which, his mother expressed her inability to give gold and gave Rs.20,000/-. His evidence is that, PW1 informed him that, accused used to keep her in her room and locked the door by outside as such she suffered a lot and became sick. This part of evidence never find place in the evidence of PW1 to PW3. The same is complete improvement from what PW1 to PW3 have deposed. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted. 23. It is to be seen that, none of the witnesses clearly indicate as to when and also the nature of cruelty meted out to PW1. It is not as if A1 and PW1 lived only for a short period. The record shows that both of them lived together for more than three years. That being the position, some specific time period should have been mentioned with regard to the acts of harassment. Except saying that all the accused harassed, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is silent as to the nature of harassment meted out to PW1. Whether it was beating or by any other method. The usage of word ‘harassed’ in loose manner, in my view, cannot be taken as amounting to cruelty, unless, the evidence disclosing the nature of the harassment falling within the meaning of cruelty as deposed in 498A IPC. Whether it was beating or by any other method. The usage of word ‘harassed’ in loose manner, in my view, cannot be taken as amounting to cruelty, unless, the evidence disclosing the nature of the harassment falling within the meaning of cruelty as deposed in 498A IPC. Further, as observed earlier, the nature of harassment spoken to by PW1 to PW4 are inconsistent with each other. Each witness is improving the case. What is spoken to by one witness is not spoken to by another witness. 24. Apart from that, it is to be noted that, this FIR came to be lodged on 15.05.2006, after receipt of summons from the court in the O.P. filed by the husband of PW1 for divorce. The record discloses that, PW1 left the company of A1 in December 2005 and thereafter, she did not give report and only after receiving notice in O.P., she filed the present case. 25. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, this court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt can be extended to the A1, more so, when the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to allegations of harassment made against in-laws and others was disbelieved by the court below. 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the Revision Petitioner/ A1 in the Judgment, dated 02.06.2011, in C.C. No. 125 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, which was partly confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2011 by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur, on 20.03.2012 is set aside. Consequently, A-1 shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. 27. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.