THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.50 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 10.01.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentences imposed on revision petitioner-A1 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Karimnagar by judgment dated 21.11.2003 in C.C.No.7 of 2003 was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.8.2000 a complaint was lodged by PW.1 before S.H.O., Karimnagar-II Town P.S. stating that her marriage was performed with A1 on 6.3.1999 at Karimnagar as per the caste customs and A1 received cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and other articles as dowry. The couple led happy marital life for one month and later A1 and other accused started harassing PW.1 for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and her father-PW.2 paid the said amount to A1. On 7.5.2000 all the accused harassed her and demanded PW.1 to get a Suzuki motor cycle from her father-PW.2 or an equivalent amount. She informed PW.2 about the same and PW.2 came to the house of the accused along with two elders i.e. PWs 3 and 4 and promised to pay Rs.45,000/- within two months and requested the accused to take care of PW.1. On 21.7.2000 the accused beat PW.1 for non-payment of the said amount and necked her out from the house. On 22.7.2000, PW.2 along with elders, went to the house of the accused and questioned them about the harassment. Again on 1.8.2000 the elders summoned the father-in-law of PW.1, but he again demanded Rs.45,000/-. Hence she filed the complaint. Basing on the compliant, a case in Cr.No.146/2000 was registered under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused. After completing investigation, charge sheet was laid against them for the said offences. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 on its behalf whereas DW.1 was examined on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the material brought on record, the trial court found A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, while acquitting A2 to A6. A1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC a n d further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, A1 filed Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2003 before the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimagar. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments of learned counsel on either side and after perusal of the entire material, dismissed the said appeal confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court, by the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there is no evidence on record to show what type of cruelty PW.1 was subjected to at the hands of the revision petitioner; that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not corroborated by any independent witness as PWs 3 and 4 are interested witnesses; that there is no evidence to show that after the marriage, PW2 paid Rs.50,000/- to the revision petitioner as additional dowry; that the evidence of PW5- Investigating Officer, cannot be relied as he did not examine any independent witnesses such as village elders, neighbours to establish the truth. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court stating that the said Court after considering the entire material on record as well as after hearing both sides confirmed the order of conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court against A1 of the offences under Section 498- A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as such the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court does not in any way warrant interference. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 8. PW.1 is the wife of A1. PW.2 is the father of PW.1. In their evidence, they reiterated the averments made in the complaint-Ex.P.1. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2, with regard to demanding additional dowry and harassment to that effect, is corroborated by PWs 3 and 4. Though PWs 3 and 4 are relatives of PWs 1 and 2, their evidence cannot be brushed aside since nothing was elicited in their cross- examination with regard to their interestedness in supporting the case of the prosecution. PWs 1 to 4 categorically stated that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and the same was paid to A1 by PW.2. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 that they went to the house of the accused and requested them to grant time to pay Rs.45,000/- and they dropped PW.1 in their house goes to show that A1 demanded additional dowry. Further their evidence reveals that PW.1 was subjected to harassment at the hands of A1. On the other hand, DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not know whether parents of PW.1 gave any dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused and he did not know about the panchayaths conducted to resolve the dispute between PW1 and A1. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the defence. In view of the above observation, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is convinced that the courts below have not committed any error or irregularity while coming to the finding that the revision petitioner- accused No.1 was guilty of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, this court does not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment of the first appellate court as well as the trial court. Hence, it does not warrant interference from this court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Date: 09-07-2010 Stp