THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1136 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in C.C.No.409 of 2006 dated 28.01.2008.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Perusal of the record shows that de-facto complainant filed a complaint against her husband stating that their marriage was performed about 9 years back. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.60,000/- cash and gold ornaments as dowry to the accused. Both lived happily about one year, but later accused addicted to bad vices and extracted Rs.25,000/- for establishing Kirana Shop, but due to non 2 supervision of the accused, business was put to an end. On 22.02.2006, when P.W.1/wife was in her grand-father's house, accused came there and dragged her and beat indiscriminately. Later she gave complaint against him in Crime No.17 of 2006 under Section 498(A).
4. The de-facto complainant was examined herself as P.W.1 and she also examined P.Ws.2 & 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 in support of her contention, but accused did not adduce any evidence.
5. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record found that accused is guilty for the offence under Section 498-A, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and the same was also confirmed by the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
6. The appellant mainly contended that the presence of P.W.3 at the scene of offence is highly doubtful and in the cross- examination, P.W.3 admitted that accused did not abuse or beat 3 the P.W.1 in her presence and there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. He never demanded any additional dowry. At the time of marriage the petitioner/accused was financially sound and having landed and other properties including a jeep, as such the question of demanding additional dowry from P.Ws.1 to 3 does not arise. He further stated that P.W.1 did not file any medical evidence. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.
7. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. He stated that, at the time of marriage, he gave Rs.60,000/- cash and gold ornaments as dowry and later accused demanded Rs.25,000/- to put business and he paid the said amount to him, but later he addicted to the bad vices and sustained losses in the business, as such P.W.1 and accused returned to Penagada Village and at that time accused dragged P.W.1 and beat her indiscriminately, as such she gave complaint against the accused.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that this Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the concurrent findings of both the Courts.
4
9. This Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and it appears that this Criminal Revision Case is filed only to drag on the proceedings and the revision petitioner did not appear before the Court the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 03.02.2023 tri 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1136 of 2009 DATED: 03.02.2023 TRI