Telangana High Court
Mukkurala Prabhu , Prabhu Goud, Medak ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep.By Pp., High Court, ... on 8 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1409 OF 2011
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment and conviction dated 14.06.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak (for short 'the appellate Court') by reversing the Judgment dated 15.10.2008 passed in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narsapur (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shailaja @ Lavanya (victim) filed the complaint in Police Station, Jinnaram on 06.03.2006 stating that her marriage was performed with M.Prabu goud (petitioner herein/accused No.1) in the presence of elders and at the time of marriage, parents of victim gave 10 Tulas of gold, Rs.40,000/-cash for Motorcycle and Rs.30,000/- on two occasions and they also gave Almarah, cot clothes, household articles worth Rs.15,000/-. 2 After the marriage, they lived happily for three months. Later on, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the victim for want of additional dowry and they used to abuse her in a filthy language and they used to beat her. About three months, the petitioner beat the victim and he left her in her parent's house along with motorcycle and demanded to bring Rs.50,000/-, failing which, he will go for second marriage. Accordingly, he got second marriage. When the victim and his parents along with elders went and enquired from victim's in-laws, then they said to do whatever they want and the petitioner further told her to come and join with him and he will also maintain her.
3. Basing on the said complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police (for short SI), Jinnaram has registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2006 under Sections 498-A and 494 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and issued FIR. Then S.I. recorded the statements of witnesses. On 03.05.2006 he apprehended petitioner/accused No.1 and on his interrogation the petitioner/accused No.1 confessed his offence along with accused Nos.2 to 7. Then the petitioner was sent to judicial 3 remand. On 17.05.2006 accused Nos.2 to 7 surrendered before the Court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. Upon that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and taken on file as C.C.No.182 of 2006.
4. In support of his case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked exhibits P1 and P2.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Magistrate has passed the judgment in C.C.No.182 of 2006 which reads as under:
"26. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 298 (A) of IPC., and they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C".
6. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment in C.C.No.182 of 2006, has allowed the criminal appeal by passing the following order:
4
"25. For the above reasons, the lower Court had committed error in acquitting accused No.1. Therefore, the judgment of the lower Court is modified by convicting and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo R.I. for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo S.I. for 2 months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 7 are acquitted for the said offence.
26. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. Modifying the judgment dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned JFCM, Narsapur in C.C.No.182 of 2006 by convicting and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 7 are acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Hence accused No.1 is directed to surrender before the lower Court within 30 days from the date of this judgment to serve the sentence, failing which lower Court is directed to issue NBW against accused No.1."
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is preferred.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1 did not place anything before this Court, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard 5 to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place long back and during the period the revision petitioner/accused No.1 must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of conviction for a period of one month S.I while maintaining the fine.
9. This Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by reducing the sentence imposed by the appellate Court from three years Rigorous Imprisonment to one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
10. Except the above modification of the sentence, no further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed by the learned appellate Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 08.02.2024 vsu