THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.952 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2001 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.160 of 1998 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the first respondent herein who is the first accused therein of the charge punishable under section 302 of IPC, but convicted him for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC. 2 Brief facts are that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Guntur Town filed charge sheet in Cr.No.87 of 1997 of Arundelpet (L&O) P.S. for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC against the accused alleging that the accused A.1 to A.4 subjected Smt. Angirekula Nagarani wife of the first accused to cruelty and harassedher by demanding her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents as additional dowry and on account of harassment meted out to her by the accused 1 to 4, she died on 31.05.1997. The allegation is that the death occurred within seven years of her marriage with the first accused and thereby all the accused committed the alleged offence. After trial, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge found A.1 to A.3 not guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC or in the alternative u/s. 302 of IPC., but found the first accused (petitioner herein) guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As stated supra, the de facto complainant who is the father of the deceased filed the present revision questioning the judgment of the court below in finding the first respondent i.e. husband of the deceased guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC instead of finding him guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. 3. Heard. 4. Having gone through the entire material available on record, this court is of the view that the court below is perfectly justified in acquitting the other accused in the case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses brings home the guilt of the first accused for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC and the mandatory requirements viz., 1) The death was occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, 2) There was harassment to the deceased prior to her death and 3) Because of the harassment only the deceased died have been well established by the prosecution by cogent and clinching evidence. The court below has gone into all these aspects very thoroughly in finding the first accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly it convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. Further, the trial court pronounced its judgment on 12.10.2001. May be the first accused must have preferred an appeal against the said judgment. Further, this is a revision under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the jurisdiction of this court is very limited. It is only when any material irregularity has been committed by the court below, this court will interfere and that too this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh disposal. But it cannot give any altogether different finding. 4 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010