THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No. 375 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused againat the judgment dated 17.2.2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 15.2.2002 passed by the learned Munisif Magistrate in C.C.No.113 of 1999 finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month, was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that the revision petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Their marriage took place on 11.5.1998 and at the time of marriage, her father gave a cash of Rs.25,000/-, 6 ½ Sovereigns of gold, 20 tolas of silver and household articles worth Rs.20,000/- and they lived together for two months. Thereafter, the revision petitioner and other accused started harassing the defacto complainant to bring more dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and used to beat her. A2 to A.5 used to instigate the revision petitioner to ill-treat defacto complainant demanding more dowry from her parents. They also obtained defacto complainant’s signatures on blank papers and forced her to write a letter stating that she was thinking to commit suicide and the accused are not responsible for it. The revision petitioner and the other accused attributed illicit intimacy to her with someone else. The defacto complainant informed her parents about harassment mated out to her by all the accused and their parents assured her that they would convince the accused. Further all the accused threatened the defacto complainant to perform the second marriage of the revision petitioner. Unable to bear the harassment caused by the revision petitioner and other accused, she gave report to the Police under Ex.P.1 and a case was taken on file under Section 498-A IPC by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1. 4. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record, found the revision petitioner guilty as stated in Para No.1, supra, and found A.2 to A.5 as not guilty for the charge under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge, after re- appreciating the evidence brought on record in the trial court, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court below failed to see the contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2; that they are interested witnesses and that the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. 7. Defacto complainant deposed as PW.1 and she reiterated what all she stated in the police report. PW.2 is the father of PW.1. He stated that the revision petitioner used to demand more dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing tractor through his daughter-PW.1. PW.1 informed her mother about demand and harassment mated out to her by the revision petitioner and other accused, and she in turn, informed to PW.2. Defacto complainant’s mother and father went to the house of the revision petitioner and requested his parents not to ill-treat their daughter. On one occasion, the revision petitioner and PW.1 came to his house and demanded money for the purpose of purchasing the tractor. He further stated that because of his failure to fulfil the demand, the revision petitioner and the other accused intensified harassment towards PW.1. The evidence of PW.2 is corroborating the evidence of PW.1 and as such, the accusation levelled against the revision petitioner is proved. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has not committed any error in finding the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 9. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner are of no avail. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -03-2009 Stp