RAJAGOPALAPETA LEELANANDAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner is a-1 in S. C. No. 491 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, l. B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

(2.) THE Sessions Case was filed against six accused and charges were framed against all of them for the offences under Section 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A1 to A6 were acquitted for the offences under section 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act. But, A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the same, A1 preferred Crl. A. No. 88 of 2002 before the III Additional Sessions judge, L. B. Nagar, Rangareddy District and the Appellate Court, while dismissing the Appeal, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three years and confirmed the sentence of fine.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, A1 preferred the present revision case by contending that there are no ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC; that the lower Court, while disbelieving the prosecution regarding the harassment and in the light of the prosecution witnesses making deliberate improvements, ought to have thrown out their evidence as false and unreliable and that the Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the prosecution and acquitted the accused.