Telangana High Court
Katta Venkanna, Penagadapa V, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its P.P., ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
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
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
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.
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
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1136 of 2009
DATED: 03.02.2023
TRI
