High Court dismissed criminal revision challenging conviction and aggravated sentence for dowry death andabetting suicide. Court held no grounds to interfere but reduced sentence to custody period.
Revision dismissed; sentence reduced to period of imprisonment already undergone.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32ee ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 921 OF 2013
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397l4O1Cr.P.C praying setaside the impugned Order dated.08.08.2012, passed in CRL.A , on the file of the lV Addl.Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar, in SC No.479 of 2010 Dated 21.09.2011 on the file of tfie Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar .
Between:
Gollena Rajaiah, S/o Komuraiah Rl/o Gattududdenapalli Village of Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar District
AND
.PET|TIoNER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
The State of AP, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP., Hyderabad
..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2013(CRLRCMP. NO: 1439 OF 201 3)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence and release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No.96/2011 dt 8.8.2012 on the file of the lV Addl.Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar against in SC No.479l201O dt 21 .O9.2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar pending disposal of the Crl.RC.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl A. GAYATRI REDDY
Counsel for the Sole Respondent: SRI E.GANESH ASST.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
i I i ;
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.921 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 08.08.2OI2 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2011 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 21 .O9.2OL1 in S.C.No.479 of 2OtO passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short, "the trial Court").
EWJ Gl.R.C.No.921 of 2013
2
times; thereafter a panchayath was held to settlethe dispute; the couple had a child; yet he continuedthe harassment, beat her and sent her to herpa-rents house; he went to her parents-in-law house on 29.11.2OO9 at 9.OO a.m. with elders, abused her in filthy language ald triedto take away his son from the deceased; disgusted with the life, she consumed poison and committed suicide.
EWJ Crl.R.C.No.921 of 2013
3
imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 498-4 IpC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a f,rne of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for offence punishable under section 306 IpC, to run both sentences concurrently.
4 EW,J Crl.R.C.No.921 of20 13
I ; I
conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and PW-10 is investigating offlcer.
EWJ CILR.C.No.921 of 2013
5
1 )
made not immediately after the ma-rriage but twelve years after marriage and the deceased was none other the daughter of paternal aunt of the petitioner herein. So both knew each other right from their childhood. Petitioner having known her nature of sensitiveness treated her in the deserved way, even then she refused to join him. She further contended that no dying declaration was recorded. She further contended that mere attempt of taking his own son into his custody does not amount to abatement to commit suicide. Hence, she seeks to allow the Revision
1 1. In the case on hand, the trial Court as well as appellate Court concurrently held that the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, which finding, 1n my considered view, does not call for interference, ln exerclse of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
6
E'V'J CrLR.C.No.921 of2013
L2. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment of the appellate Court and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
AFYPSL
P,'^A
HIGH COURT
DATEDi2an112024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.921 of 2O13
1 HE S14 I
O
o 2I JUL 206
C-j
):-
.a,'
C.),:.SPr-.j'C
DISMISSING THE CRL.RC.
q l+\d
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the appellate Court under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gollena Rajaiah
State of AP
Justice E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
