HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1297 OF 2007 Dated 10-9-2014 Between:
Putta Veeranna.
And:
..Petitioner.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1297 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 21-9-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 5-7-2006 in C.C.No.80 of 2003 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, is confirmed to the extent of conviction by modifying sentence.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Station House Officer, Rayavaram, filed charge sheet alleging that marriage between revision petitioner and P.W.1 was solmonized on 25-10-1996 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and that at the time of marriage, Ac.0-60 cents of land besides cash and other articles were given as dowry and that both of them lived happily for one year and thereafter, A.1 i.e., revision petitioner addicted to alcohol and used to harass P.W.1 both mentally and physically, and that he and his parents demanded additional dowry and also insisted P.W.1 to sell Ac.0.60 cents of land and that the matter could not be settled in spite of intervention of elders and that on a complaint from P.W.1, Crime No.113 of 2002 is registered and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner and other accused committed offence under Section 498-A read with 34 I.P.C.
On these allegations, trial court examined nine witnesses and marked three documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and found other accused not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. A.1 is sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godvari, a t Rajahmundry, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction but reduced imprisonment from two years to three months. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Learned Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that except the self serving testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. He further submitted that conviction recorded against revision petitioner is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is not at all convincing and not supported by any independent evidence.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is evidence on record to show that petitioner caused cruelty to P.W.1 and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, after marriage, both P.W.1 and revision petitioner lived happily for a period of one year and thereafter, revision petitioner having addicted to alcohol started harassing P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry. Though the charge sheet is filed against A.1 to A.4, on scanning of evidence, trial court found that there is no evidence against A.2 to A.4 for the alleged harassment and evidence on record is only against A.1 and the same is confirmed by the appellate court.
Now, the contention of advocate for revision petitioner is that when both courts have not accepted the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to allegations of harassment against A. 2 to A.4, believing the same, in respect of A.1 is not at all correct and therefore, the revision petitioner has to be acquitted.
But as seen from the evidence, P.W.1 clearly deposed about the acts committed by revision petitioner. But so far as other accused are concerned, she deposed that they instigated the revision petitioner i.e., A.1. So, there was no direct evidence against A.2 to A.4 and trial court extended benefit of doubt to them but here so far as revision petitioner is concerned, there is ample evidence attracting ingredients of Section 498- A I.P.C.
One of the arguments advanced on behalf of revision petitioner is that trial court mainly relied on the cross-examination of P.W.1 for convicting the accused and that the same is not permissible. But the objection of revision petitioner is not tenable because evidence means both chief and cross and on an overall assessment of victim’s evidence, trial court found that charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. is made out. In fact, the appellate court while reassessing the evidence examined entire evidence meticulously and considered each and every objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner.
On a scrutiny of the material, it is clear that the very same objections are raised before the appellate court which are not accepted. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. On the other hand, evidence on record would clinchingly show that there was harassment which attracted cruelty as defined in Section 498-A I . P . C . As rightly contended by learned Public Prosecutor, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction.
Coming to sentence part, trial court imposed two years imprisonment and the appellate court reduced the same to three months. I am of the view that appellate court has already taken a lenient view, therefore, there are no grounds even to interfere with the sentence.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 10-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1297 OF 2007 Dated 10-9-2014