Telangana High Court
B.Narsing Rao 3 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 23 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1347 OF 2008
Date: 23.12.2022.
kvs
