Maqbool Bin Syed, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1015 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.04.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Mahabubnagar in C.C.No.84 of 2007 upon the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, vide judgment dated 18.06.2010 was confirmed.

3 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar, filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC alleging that the petitioner married P.W.1 Basheerunnisa Begum on 07.07.2002 according to their caste customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.75,000/- and five and half tulas of gold to the petitioner towards dowry. After the marriage the petitioner and P.W.1 were blessed 2 with a boy and son. Thereafter the petitioner used to harass P.W.1 both mentally and physically for additional dowry and that the petitioner used to cohabit with maid servant.

4 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. The petitioner got examined D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1.

5 On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellate Court, after reappreciating the material on record, by judgment dated 18.04.2011 dismissed the Criminal Appeal. Hence the present criminal revision case. 6 The evidence of P.W.1 is completely corroborated to the complaint given by her to the police. Her evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are her father and elder sister. P.W.1 deposed in unequivocal terms about the harassment meted out by the 3 petitioner. There are no convincing suggestions put to her in cross examination. I find no material omissions or contradictions in her evidence much less any discrepancies. The evidence on record would go to show that petitioner being the husband of P.W.1 subjected her to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowry, which attracts the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC.

7 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witness was examined does not inspire the mind of the court for the reason that the solitary testimony of P.W.1 itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the prosecution could establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the well considered and concurrent findings of the courts below and accordingly this revision is liable to be dismissed. 8 However, coming to the quantum of sentence, the courts below have imposed sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment against the petitioner. But, as seen from the record, the offence is of the year 2006 and the petitioner has been roaming around the courts for all these years. Keeping in view of the mental agony and the trauma faced by the petitioner, this court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

9 Accordingly, the period of six months rigorous imprisonment imposed by both the courts below against the petitioner is reduced to that of the period which the petitioner had already undergone. 10 Except the above modification in respect of the period of sentence, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is dismissed. 11 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 20.09.2023 Kvsn