HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.669 OF 2004 Date: 15-06-2011 Between: Kuttuboina Subbayamma. - - - Petitioner/ De- facto Complainant. Versus Onteru Mohana Rao and 5 others. - - - Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.669 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- PW.1 (De-facto complainant) against judgment of acquittal, dated 15-12-2003, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2002 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. The Petitioner is PW.1 and the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.511 of 2000 whereas, the Respondent No.5 is the State. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The Accused Nos.1 and 4 were prosecuted in the Sessions Case No.511 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 498- A and Section 306 IPC on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. After due trial, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of paying it to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC while acquitting them of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, vide judgment, dated 18-03-2002 whereas, against the said conviction, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2002 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, who having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the Appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Accused by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District vide judgment, dated 15-12-003 and challenging the same, the Petitioner-PW.1 (De-facto complainant) has preferred this Revision. 4. Even though the matter is posted to today under the caption “For Orders” there is no representation on either side. 5. The point for consideration is whether the lower Appellate Court has properly considered the matter and acquitted the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and whether it is tenable or not? 6. As seen from the record, it is clear that the lower Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides and after going through the depositions of PWs.1 to 5 who are mother, father, two brothers and sister of the deceased respectively, observed that the prosecution failed to establish cruelty on the part of the accused, which according to the prosecution drove the deceased to commit suicide and the lower Court without considering the evidence on record and simply basing on certain decisions, convicted the accused without giving specific finding as to whether the deceased was cruelly treated by the accused. Ultimately, the Appellate Court properly allowed the Criminal Appeal cogently considering the evidence on record. 7. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the Judgement passed by the lower Appellate Court and accordingly the Criminal Revision Case deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgement passed in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2002, dated 15-12-2003 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 15h June, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.669 OF 2004 June, 15, 2011 DSH