THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.98 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 28.1.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C.C.No.451 of 2002 dated 12.12.2003, was confirmed. 2. That defacto complainant Sudha Rani was married to A1 in the month of August, 1998 and that at the time of her marriage Rs.60,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold were given to the petitioner-A1. The petitioner-A1 was working as Medical Representative and after the death of his father, he was given the post of Conductor by APSRTC on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner-A1 started harassing the defacto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. His father died after 13 days of marriage; that he was addicted to bad vices; that he also started harassing the sister of the defacto complainant by name Madhavilatha stating that he was in love with her and wished to marry her, failing which, he would pour acid on her face; that once she was in a film theatre with her friends, petitioner-A1 dragged her out, on which she reported the matter to the Police and that the said report was referred to Lok Adalat where the matter was compromised between the parties on A1 committing of good behaviour in writing on a stamp paper on 27.4.2002. 3. Thereafter, also the defacto complainant was being harassed by the petitioner-A1 in breach of the agreement he had committed in writing on 27.4.2002 in favour of her father; that due to the fact that on 6.11.2002 sister of the petitioner-A1 visited his house along with her husband and that at her instance and instigation, the petitioner-A1 assaulted her badly and necked out her out of home as she failed to bring additional dowry. On the following day, she preferred Ex.P.1 complaint against him. Arundalpet Police Station registered the same as Crime No.206 of 2002 against the petitioner-A1 under Sections 498-A and 509 IPC and subsequently laid charge sheet. 4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 on its behalf, whereas Ex.D.1, relevant portion under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, was marked on behalf of the defence. 5. Taking into consideration the material brought on record by either side and also appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial court found A.2 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly she was acquitted of the said charge. So also not finding A1 guilty of the offence under Section 509 IPC, the trial Court acquitted him therefor. However, the trial court finding A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month; that A.1 was denied the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as well as the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. 6. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that though he committed in writing under Ex.P.2 to his father-in-law that he would not harass or ill treat the defacto complainant as well as her sister Madhavilatha and that he would give up all vices, it has no evidentiary value and as such the prosecution in the first place and the trial court in the second, could not rely thereon. It is further his case that the said exhibit does not in any way attract any of the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. In other words, document discloses the conduct and character of the petitioner-A1 in his own words. However, such breach becomes relevant in assessing and appreciating his conduct and character. 7. So far as the plea of the petitioner that he has not brought any woman to his house is concerned, defacto complaint made statement before the Police that the petitioner-A1 used to bring women from outside and keep them inside the house and used to ask her to wait outside in guard. She has testified as PW.1 in the trial court to the same effect. Therefore, this plea does not appeal to this court. 8. Nextly, the plea of the petitioner-A1 is that the defacto complainant has falsely mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint as well as in her statement recorded by the Police with regard to additional dowry and in fact, he never demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. In this regard, it is on record that on account of his illegal demand for additional dowry the defacto complainant used to inform her father and ultimately the very demand seems to be the cause of the litigation which ultimately has driven the defacto complainant to seek the Police help, as such, the said plea also does not appeal to the court. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgement of the appellate court stating that after considering the material on record, and after hearing both sides, the appellate court was convinced to confirm the order of conviction passed by the trial court. 10 In the above circumstances, this court is not convinced by the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner-A1 and as such, this criminal revision case fails and the same is dismissed. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 17.12.2009 Stp