THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1247 of 2005 Date: 20.09.2011 Between: J. Sanjeeva Reddy … Petitioner/ Complainant AND The State of A.P., Through SHO, Ramchandrapuram PS, Medak District, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and 4 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1247 of 2005 ORDER: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reported that he has already given up his Vakalat. There is no representation for the petitioner. This petition is, therefore, disposed of without hearing the petitioner. 2. This is a revision filed by the de facto complainant against A.1 to A.4 in S.C.No.436 of 003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. The revision petitioner is PW.1. He is the father of the victim by name Renuka @ Chitti. 3. The deceased was said to have been given in marriage to A.1 with considerable dowry. A.2 and A.3, who are respondents 3 and 4 herein, are the parents of A.1, who is second respondent herein. A.4 is the fifth respondent herein. She is the sister of A.1. It is the case of the prosecution that A.1 to A.4 treated the deceased Renuka @ Chitti with such cruelty leading to the death of the deceased. PW.1 claimed that the deceased was murdered by throttling her. Curiously, prosecution was laid u/s.304-B IPC and u/s.302 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. As already pointed out, PW.1 is the father of the deceased, Renuka @ Chitti. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. PW.3 is the brother of the deceased. PW.4 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. The rest of the witnesses are not material witnesses. After assessing the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the trial Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by PW.1 with the police (PW.9). In Ex.P.1, it was stated that the deceased lived in the house of the accused for over five years. The trial Court considered that the evidence was not sufficient to hold that there was cruelty towards the deceased by any of the accused during the period of stay of the deceased in the house of the accused. Added to it, there was no eyewitness account for the death of the deceased. The evidence culled out was considered to be full of conjunctures and surmises. The trial Court considered that the prosecution failed to make out the guilt of any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in this background. 5. I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is not perverse and is reasonable. Consequently, there are no merits in this revision. 6. The Criminal Revision case is, therefore, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.09.2011 Isn