Shaga Nagesh, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4445 Tel

            HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    CRL.R.C.No.1515 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the

judgment of the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge,

Warangal, in Crl.A.No.24 of 2007, dated 04.10.2007, whereby

the learned Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence of

simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.100/- each

imposed on the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-3 for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, in C.C.No.483 of

2001, dated 31.01.2007.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of P.W.1, who

is the victim, took place with A-1 on 10.06.2001 at

Manchupahad Village and at the time of marriage, the parents

of P.W.1 gave dowry of Rs.20,000/-, 1 ½ tulas of gold and other

household articles worth Rs.5,000/- to A-1 and that two years

after the marriage, P.W.1 blessed with a son. Thereafter, A-1 to

A-3 started harassing P.W.1 demanding additional dowry of

Rs.20,000/- and when P.W.1 informed about the harassment to

her parents, they conducted a panchayat in the presence of

elders and the elders found fault with the accused and when

the accused promised that they will not harass, P.W.1 was sent

along with them, but the accused continued to harass P.W.1

demanding additional dowry. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the

complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime

No.32 of 2001 was registered against the accused for the

offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of

investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the

accused. The accused were tried for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got

marked Exs.P1 and P3 to prove the guilt of the accused. On

behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence

was adduced. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral

and documentary, the trial Court, found the accused guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.100/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a

period of one month.

In an appeal preferred by the accused, the learned IV

Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirmed the said

conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the revision

petitioners-A1 and A-3 preferred this criminal revision.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 29.10.2021,

none appeared for the revision petitioners nor was any

representation made on their behalf. Hence, the matter was

directed to be listed on 02.12.2021 under the caption 'for

dismissal'. On 06.12.2021, at the request of the learned Counsel

for the revision petitioners, the matter was directed to be listed

on 08.12.2021 and on that day also none appeared for the

revision petitioners. Hence, the matter was heard after taking

assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

There is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below

with regard to guilt of the revision petitioners-A1 and A3 and

there is nothing on record which would discredit the evidence

of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no interference

warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to

the sentence of imprisonment, it may be mentioned that the

offence took place in the year 2001 and almost 20 years have

passed and during this period the revision petitioners must

have repented for what they did. In these circumstances and in

the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of

six months simple imprisonment to that of the period already

undergone by the revision petitioners, while maintaining the

sentence of fine imposed against them.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed

and the sentence of six months simple imprisonment imposed

on the revision petitioners-A1 and A-3 by the trial Court and

confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is reduced to that of the period

already undergone by the revision petitioners/A-1 and A-3

while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against them.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

17-12-2021 Gsn