HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1347 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The revision petitioners are A1 to A4 who were tried for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in CC No.483 of 1998, dated 05.11.2004, which was confirmed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2004. Aggrieved by the same, present Revision Case is filed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed in the month of December 1997 by the wife of the 1st petitioner/A1 stating that her marriage was performed with A1 on 15.02.1997 in accordance with Hindu customs and dowry was also given. Two months thereafter, the scooter which was given as dowry was sold by A1 and the petitioners started demanding additional dowry. While the wife of A1 was carrying 7 months pregnancy, the petitioners herein who are A1 to A4 2 forced her to consume acid and she was admitted to Kamineni Hospital for treatment.
3. Thereafter a panchayat was held on 03.05.1998 for reconciliation. However the reconciliation did not take place.
4. Learned Magistrate found that the allegation of demand for additional dowry was acceptable and that the hospitalization of P.W.1, who is wife of A1 was not disputed. In the back ground of the hospitalization, the learned Magistrate found that the allegation of harassing her for additional dowry and forcing her to consume poison are correct and accordingly convicted the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
5. On appeal, learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate on the basis of demand for additional dowry and also the hospitalization of P.W.1.
6. The concurrent findings of the lower courts below cannot be found fault with. However, the medical record of P.W.1 was not filed before the concerned court to ascertain the injury 3 that was inflicted on P.W.1. Though, the petitioners/accused denied the reason for hospitalization is consumption of acid, however did not deny that P.W.1 was hospitalized for some time. In the absence of any medical record, which is produced by the prosecution, the injury to P.W.1 cannot be assessed and it cannot be said that the hospitalization was only on the ground of the acts of the petitioners in forcibly administering acid. The other allegation regarding the demand for additional dowry is consistently stated by P.W.1, who is wife of A1 and P.Ws.2 and 3, who are parents-in-law of A1. Though the cross- examination was directed towards the incapacity of P.Ws.2 and 3 to give dowry or additional dowry, such facts cannot be considered at the stage of revision before this Court.
7. The incident is of the year 1997 and nearly 25 years have lapsed since the date of alleged incident. For the said reason of the prosecution not filing any material to show that P.W.1 was administered acid, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. 4
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 23.12.2022 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1347 OF 2008 Date: 23.12.2022.
kvs