THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri, Jakkula Sridhar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made thb following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2 187 0F 7013 ORDER: 1 This criminal revision case is fited under .sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the judgment dated 03'9'2013 passed by the learned Additionat District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad in Crt.A.No.2 of 2010 whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 509 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three ydars and atso to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and to suffer simpte imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs'1,000/- respectivety, was confirmed. 2 Heard Sri Jakkuta Sreedhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. 3 The accusation tevetted against the petitioner was that as a resutt of eve-teasing and insisting the girt by name Rani, aged about 16 years to marry him as he is in love with her, the said Rani, unable to bear with the said harassment meted out by the petitioner, comrnitted suicide on 21 .7.2008 by consuming I I i I I I I pesticide, as such the petitioner was charge sheeted and tried by 7 1\ the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, atong with two \ other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 306 of lPC. ln order to bring home the guitt of the petitioner, the 4 prosecution examined, in a[t, 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and exhibited 6 documents. On behatf of the petitioner / defence no oral or documentary evidence was let ifl, except Ex.D.1 photograph. 5 The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, on appreciation of the orat and documentary evidence avaitable on record, found the petitioner atone guilty of both the offences and sentenced him as stated supra, vide judgment dated 07.01 .2010- However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad acquitted the other two accused from the said offences. 6 Chattenging the said findings and judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeat No.2 of 2010 on the fite of the learned Additionat District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, who, on re- appreciation of the entire evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present revision case. I I I I 3 7 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts betow faited to appreciate the evidence avaitabte on record in right perspective and erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed the charged offences. Hence he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the petitioner by the courts betow. 8 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor contended that both the courts have evatuated the evidence on record in proper perspective and have rightty come to the conctusion that the petitioner has committed the offences for which he was trierd and the concurrent findings of both the courts do not warrant interference of this Court in exercise ol' revisional jurisdiction of thjs Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 9 As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly, P.Ws.'l to 3, the petitioner harassed the deceased forcing her to marry him. Their evidence is cogent and convincing on atl material aspects. The petitioner did not adduce any positive evidenr:e to believe Ex.D.1 photograph showing the deceased and the petitioner together and that they were in love with each other. Att the other contentions advanced by the petitioner before this Court were atready dealt with by the 4 courts below and were struck down with sound reasoning. Hence I see no reason much less ptausible reason to interfere with the wetl founded judgments rendered by the Courts below and accordingty this criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 10 However, with regard to the quantum of sentence imposed by the courts below, I am of the view that the offence is of the year 2008 and the petitioner has been roaming around the courts since last 17 years, as such, he must have suffered lot of mental agony and trauma, which itsetf in my considered opinion is punishment for the sin committed by him. Hence this court is inclined to take lenient view in respect of the sentence of imprisonment. More over, the appettate court rendered its judgment on 03.9.2013 and on that day the petitioner was committed to prison and it was onty on 20.9.2013 on which day this court suspended the sentence imposed by the appeltate court, the petitioner came out of the jai[. Hence he suffered some sentence. 11 Accordingty, the period of sentence imposed by both the courts betow for each of the offences shatt be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. -''------ 5 12 Except the above modification in respect of the sentence, this criminal revision case, in atl other aspects, is dismissed. 13 Misce[laneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shatI atso stand dismissed. Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// ' tt ' SECTION OFFICER To, DL

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge' Vikarabad, R R. District' 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Distrtct' 3, The Station House Officer, Vikarabad Police station, Ranga Reddy District. 4, Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri. Jakkula Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies W. r I I I HIGH COURT DATED:30/0112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2187 of 2013 -. (.r \' 0I ,l,i,v 2W o '+ * rrA Tc!t:'. 1 , -:/ DISMISSING TlJE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE @ n1 \4 )0