VEMULA VAMSI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the first Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, challenging the judgment, dtd. 18/4/2006, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Sessions Case No.386 of 2003 before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore.

(2.) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.

(3.) The present petitioner along with A.2 and A.3 faced charges under Ss. 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code ( "I.P.C. " for short) before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore and the learned Judge acquitted A.3 under Sec. 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure ( "Cr.P.C " for short) for the charges under Ss. 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge convicted the present petitioner along with A.2 under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the charges under Ss. 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100.00 in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 498-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.100.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge also sentenced A.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 498-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.100.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge directed that both the sentences of A.1 and A.2 shall run concurrently. When A.1 and A.2 filed a Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, the Criminal Appeal insofar as A.2 is concerned was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence, but insofar as the present petitioner is concerned was dismissed.