IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 24-06-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.801 of 2004 Between: Chitti Srinivas Reddy Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.801 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case is preferred by the petitioner-accused challenging judgment dated 22.07.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1999, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.733 of 1996 dated 05.04.1999 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar was confirmed. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused married one Anitha(deceased), who is the daughter of P.W.1 the de-facto complainant G. Malla Reddy. The accused and the deceased lived happily for three months. Later the accused started demanding and harassing the deceased to bring amount for securing a job in Singareni collieries. On 09.06.1995 likewise the accused demanded P.W.1 to pay Rs.70,000/- for securing job which P.W.1 refused and there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased consequently. Hence, the deceased got vexed on her life thinking that her father would not fulfill the desire of her husband and committed suicide by consuming Organophospohate poison. On a report given by P.W.1 the case was registered and investigated into. The petitioner-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was found guilty of committing the said offences and was accordingly convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to suffer S.I for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A further direction was given that all the substantive sentences should run concurrently and that his remand period if any should be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C whereas aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred the Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1999 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, on the consideration of the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused has preferred the present criminal revision case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed before the trial Court. No representation has been made on behalf of the petitioner/accused even though the revision is posted under the caption ‘for judgment’. I have gone through the record. The Courts below, on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced, held that the petitioner/accused committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 24th June, 2011 VJL