THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1049 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Tadala Veera Venkata Ashok Kumar ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1049 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 11.08.2003 delivered by the Court of Session, West Godavari Division at Eluru in Crl.A.No.116 of 2000, modifying sentence awarded by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram in C.C.No.586 of 1996 dated 10.04.2000, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of paying it to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC while acquitting A.2 to A.7 therein of the same charge. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: P.W.1 P. Pratyusha the defacto-complainant is the wife of A.1 and their marriage was celebrated on 22.11.1991 at Tirumala Hills. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid towards dowry apart from giving gold ornaments. But, A.1 along with A.2 to A.6 his close relatives demanded her to get settled properties in her favour, threatening that other wise they would not allow the nuptials of the marriage, for which her parents and brother Polisetti Srinivasa Ramakrishna signed on stamped papers. Further in the third week of May, 1992, A.1 consumed liquor and harassed her mentally and physically demanding her to bring some more money and when she did not fulfil his desire, he brought her to Bhimavaram and dropped her at the bus stand there. However, in the month of June, 1992, she went to join and lead family life with A.1. But, then again she was harassed by all the accused both physically and mentally. Therefore, all the accused are liable for punishment for the offence in question. 3. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 whereas D.1 to D.4 were marked on behalf of the accused. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court reduced the sentence to till raising of the court in the place of six months as imposed by the trial court whereas aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate court, the revision petitioner/accused herein has filed this revision. 5. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. 6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition or to modify the sentence as prayed for? 8. I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1049 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.