Md.Aleem vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2542 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.905 OF 2012

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri A.Prabhakar 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

28.12.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the V

Additional Sessions Judge (II FTC) Warangal, whereby the learned

Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement

dated 01.02.2011 passed in C.C.No.235 of 2010 on the file of the Court

of the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

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 28.11.1999 as per Muslim caste customs.

That at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.45,000/-

cash, 3 tulas of gold and 18 tulas of silver anklets and other costly articles

to the petitioner. It is further complained that after four months the

petitioner asked P.W.1 for gold ornaments and as she refused to give the

same, the petitioner beat her and while he caught hold of her tightly, her

mother-in-law and her sister-in-law had taken away the ornaments on

her body. The petitioner along with his family members harassed P.W.1

for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and they also attempted to kill her by

pouring kerosene. Out of their lawful wedlock P.W.1 gave birth to a boy

and girl. On one day when the petitioner beat her in drunken state, and

while blood was oozing the house owner advised her and sent her to her

parents' house. Still the petitioner used threaten P.W.1 over phone to

bring an amount of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry. Not being able to

bear with the torture, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police, which

was registered as a case in Cr.No.211 of 2006 under Section 498-A of IPC

and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 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 8

were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.2 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.300/- for

the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

6 Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial

Court, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the Court

of the V Additional Sessions Judge (II FTC) Warangal 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 courts

below erroneously placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4

who are interested witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted

that though there was no mention about the panchayats in Ex.P.1

complaint, the courts below erroneously placed reliance on the evidence

of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6.

8 P.W.1 deposed in parlance with the contents of Ex.P.1. She

categorically deposed about the performance of her marriage with the

petitioner, giving of dowry and other gold and silver ornaments to the

petitioner at the time of marriage and also about the ill-treatment and

also the harassment meted out by the petitioner towards her. The

evidence of P.W.1 was fully corroborated by P.Ws.2, the father of P.W.1

and P.W.4, the brother of P.W.1, on all aspects and in unequivocal terms.

The independent witnesses P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 also supported the version of

P.W.1 insofar as the harassment of the petitioner towards the victim.

Though there are some minor contractions in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, such contradictions would not go to the root of

the case of the prosecution. All the independent witnesses are belonging

to Hindu community whereas the petitioner and P.W.1 belong to Muslim

community. Hence no interestedness can be attributed to them.

9 From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is established

that the petitioner started harassing the complainant and her family for

additional dowry. Hence it is nothing but harassment on the part of the

petitioner.

10 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. 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.

11 So far as the period of sentence is concerned, as seen from the

judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner was in jail from 28.12.2011, on

which date the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, till 20.06.2012 when

this Court granted bail. So the petitioner was in jail for about six months.

12 In that view of the matter, since the offence is of the year 2006

and since the petitioner was already in jail for about six months, 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 had already undergone.

13 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 also

stand dismissed.

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

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 20.09.2023 Kvsn/abb