Raparthy Bhaskar, Miryalguda, ... vs State Of A.P.,Rep.By Pp., High ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2517 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1054 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri K.Rama Subba Rao, 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 06.04.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.197 of 2008 on

the file of the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions

Judge (FTC) at Nalgonda, whereby the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement dated

15.12.2008 passed in C.C.No.90 of 2007 on the file of the Court

of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile

Court) at Nalgonda.

3 The facts, in brief, as unfolded from the case of the

prosecution, are that the marriage between the complainant -

P.W.1 and the petitioner was solemnised on 18.01.2006, which

is a love marriage. After the marriage, the petitioner started

harassing P.W.1 for dowry. On 11.12.2006 the petitioner beat

P.W.1 and her mother on that ground. Hence P.W.1 lodged a

complaint with the Women Police Station, whereupon a case in

Cr.No.67 of 2006 under Section 498-A of IPC and under

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered

and after completion of investigation the police laid charge sheet

for the said offences against the petitioner.

4 During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution

P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked.

5 The learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire

evidence available on record, both oral and documentary,

arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the charged offences and accordingly convicted

and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period

of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence

under Section 498-A of IPC, and further convicted and

sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and

also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6 Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial Court, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.197 of 2008 on the

file of the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge

(FTC) at Nalgonda and the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

after reappreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

marriage was performed forcibly with the complainant without

the will and wish of the petitioner. Soon after the marriage, the

petitioner left the company of the complainant and hence

question of harassing the complainant does not arise.

8 As seen from the record and as per the evidence of P.W.1,

the marriage between the petitioner and P.W.1 was solemnised

on 19.01.2006 at Seetha Ramaswamy vari devasthanam,

Nalgonda in the presence of some caste elders. After the

marriage, the petitioner and P.W.1 lead conjugal life at the

house of P.W.1 and after one week the petitioner stated to

P.W.1 that he would take her to his parents' house only if she

bring Rs.1.00 lakh towards dowry. P.W.1 placed the matter

before the elders before whom also the petitioner stated the

same and then the petitioner went away. On 11.12.2006 the

petitioner came to her parents' house and picked up quarrel

with her and her mother and beat them and fled away.

Thereupon PW.1 filed the complaint.

9 P.W.2 the uncle of P.W.1 and P.W.6 a neighbour of P.W.1

also supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of

P.W.7 the mother of P.W.1 also went in the same lines as that

of P.W.1. P.W.7 spoke about the harassment of the petitioner

towards P.W.1 and P.W.7 for want of dowry. The evidence of

P.W.8 is that at request of P.W.2 he went to Nalgonda where he

was informed by the petitioner himself that he and P.W.1 loved

each other and they wanted to marry, but his parents are not

willing for that marriage. Then he (P.W.8) took them to the

police station and consulted the A.S.I. On the same day the

marriage of P.W.1 and the petitioner was performed in

Ramalayam temple.

10 The contention of the petitioner was that the marriage was

against to his will and wish. If that is so, what prevented him to

lodge a complaint before the police or before the Court to that

effect immediately after the marriage? The evidence of P.Ws.6

and 7 goes to show that the petitioner himself approached them

stating that he is willing to marry P.W.1 and that his parents are

not willing for that and took their help.

11 From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is

established that the petitioner, though did not demand any

dowry at the time of marriage, started harassing the

complainant and her family for dowry after the marriage and

was not willing to continue the matrimonial life with P.W.1,

which forced P.W.1 to stay at her parents' house after marriage.

Hence it is nothing but harassment on the part of the petitioner.

12 From the totality of the facts and circumstances I am of

the opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the

petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are no grounds much less

valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments of

the courts below and accordingly this criminal revision case is

liable to be dismissed.

13 So far as the period of sentence is concerned, as seen

from the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner was in jail

from 13.12.2006 to 28.12.2006 i.e. for about 15 days. Again

after dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court on

06.04.2011 and till the date of granting bail by this Court on

30.04.2011 the petitioner was in jail for about 24 days. So, in

total, the petitioner was in jail for about 40 days.

14 In that view of the matter, since the offence is of the year

2006 and since the petitioner was already in jail for about 40

days, and since the petitioner has been roaming around the

courts for all these years, this Court is of the view that a lenient

view may be taken insofar as the punishment imposed against

the petitioner is concerned and accordingly the said period of

sentence as imposed by the Courts below is reduced to the

period which the petitioner has already undergone.

15 Except the above modification, in respect of the period of

sentence, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is

dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal

petition shall stand closed.

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

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 20.09.2023 Kvsn