Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Theiparagiri Srinivas vs The State Of A.P. on 21 August, 2024
APHC010459522011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1287/2011
Between:
Theiparagiri Srinivas ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 14.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.200
of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions
Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence
passed against the accused No.1 by the judgment dated
25.08.2009 in C.C.No.248 of 2007 on the file of the Court of
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Peddapuram, for the offences under section 498(A) and 324 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the
petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case
under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 17.06.2011 and the
sentence of imprisonment imposed against the
petitioner/accused No.1 was suspended, vide orders in
Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1843 of 2011.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). The marriage of P.W.1 was solemnized with petitioner
on 18.06.1997. At the time of marriage, the parents of
P.W.1 given dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, adapaduchu
lanchanam of Rs.10,000/- also presented gold of 10
sovereigns, 15 tulas of silver articles and household
articles worth of Rs.20,000/-. The marriage was
consummated. Out of wedlock, they blessed with two
children.
ii). Then the petitioner addicted to vices and sell away
the gold and silver articles. He also harassed her with a
demand of additional dowry. On that, parents of P.W.1
gave Rs.25,000/- at first instance and then Rs.20,000/-
in the second instance. But the petitioner did not change
his attitude.
iii). On 12.03.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., petitioner beat
P.W.1 with a cement brick, resulted, she sustained
injury over her right hand and necked her out from the
matrimonial house with a demand of additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
iv). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.10-S.I. of
Police, Peddapuram Police Station, registered a case in
Cr.No.56 of 2007 under Section 498(A) and 324 r/w.34
of IPC and investigated into.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge
sheet, the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.248
of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Peddapuram, after full-fledged trial,
found the accused No.1 guilty of the offences under Section
498(A) and 324 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to suffer simple imprisonment of two(2) months, also
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment of two(2) months, for the respective
offences. However, found the accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of
the offences under Section 498(A) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1
preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.200 of 2009, before the Court
of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada and the
same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 14.06.2011, by
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court.
6. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate
Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the
petitioner/accused No.1.
7. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant
miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court
as well first Appellate Court?"
9. Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the testimony of P.W.1 is
inconsistent with the medical evidence; that the trial Court
erred in placing reliance on the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, which is hearsay in nature; that the Trial Court as
well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record
in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and
the same is liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits
that the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with testimony of P.Ws.2 to
4, 7 and Exs.P.4 shows that P.W.1 sustained injury in the
hands of petitioner over her forearm and he made harassment
against her for additional dowry; that prosecution proved the
offences against the petitioner beyond all doubt; that the Courts
below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and
convicted the petitioner/accused No.1 for the said offences and
thereby, prays to dismiss the present revision.
11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused
the material available on record. It is the main contention of the
petitioner/accused No.1 that the testimony of P.W.1 is
inconsistent without any corroboration and cannot be relied
upon.
12. It is not in dispute about the relationship between the
P.W.1 and petitioner as wife and husband and factum of birth of
children out of their wedlock. P.W.1 in her testimony
categorically testified about the harassment made by the
petitioner with a demand of additional dowry as well caused
injury to her with a stone and necked out her from the
matrimonial home. The testimony of P.W.1 coupled with
testimony of P.W.7 doctor as well Ex.P.4 would certificate
established that P.W.1 sustained injury on her right hand.
13. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated
to the testimony of P.W.3 brother as well P.Ws.2 and 4 parents
of P.W.1. P.W.5, who said to be neighbor of petitioner,
conducted panchayat between petitioner and P.W.1, which
categorically shows the matrimonial dispute between them.
Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the
testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4. In view of the settled legal position, in
a matrimonial dispute, the consistent testimony of victim/P.W.1
itself sufficient to come a conclusion that the petitioner
committed the said offences against P.W.1, even in the absence
of independent corroboration.
14. The Trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held
that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly goes to show that the
petitioner/accused No.1 harassed P.W.1 with a demand of
additional dowry, beat her with a stone and caused injury to her
and thereby committed the said offences.
15. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on
facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being
Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without
any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings
arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before
this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution
witnesses.
16. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below
rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution is able to
establish the offences leveled against the petitioner/accused
No.1 and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the
Trial Court as well Sessions Court in appreciating the material
on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved
the guilt of the accused No.1 for the said offences. In these
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both
the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences.
17. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the offence had occurred
on 12.03.2007, pleaded mercy as there was no past history of
criminal antecedents and seeks to invoke the Probation of
Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as "P.O. Act").
18. The P.O. Act aims to provide the benefit of releasing
offenders on probation of good conduct instead of imprisoning
them. It emphasizes reformation and rehabilitation, steering
away from the negative effects of jail life. The court then
examined Section 4 of the Act, which empowers the court to
release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.
19. Section 4(1) allows the court to direct an offender to enter
into a bond, appear for sentencing when called upon, and
maintain good behavior during a specified period. This court also
perused the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Lakhvir Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab1 and the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the P.O. Act. It is an Act to
give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good
conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.
20. In the case on hand, considering the fact that the offence
said to be happened on 12.03.2007 and by that time the revision
petitioner was aged about 30 years; that he has no previous
criminal antecedents; that the offence was said to have taken
place in the year, 2007 and more than sixteen (16) years have
already been lapsed and that now to serve the remaining
sentence by the petitioner/accused would amounts to travesty of
justice, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it
appropriate to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act.
12021 SCC OnLine SC 25
Furthermore, there is no adverse report against him about his
conduct towards P.W.1 otherwise the same would have been
brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
21. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including
the nature of the offence and the character of the petitioner, the
Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment, direct him to be released on his entering into a
bond. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
conviction is upheld, however, it is a fit case, wherein the benefit
of probation can be extended to the petitioner/accused
No.1/offender in the light of Section 4 of the P.O. Act and
relevant judicial pronouncements. Hence, the petitioner/accused
No.1 be released with an undertaking, by executing a bond, that
he shall maintain good behaviour for a period one year.
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part
The revision petitioner is directed to be released on probation
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, by
entering into a bond, before the Court of learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapuram within fifteen
(15) days from the date of copy of this order made ready, to
ensure that he will maintain peace and good behavior for a
period of one year, failing which, he can be called upon to serve
the sentence imposed.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 21.08.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1287 of 2011
DATE: 21.08.2024
Krs
