Kandukuri Ramesh vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2543 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.911 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

25.01.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.49 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the I

Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement dated

18.04.2011 passed in C.C.No.213 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the

learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.

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 28.04.1999. That at the time of marriage,

the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.1.00 lakh as dowry and even after the

marriage her parents gave Rs.50,000/- when the petitioner stated that he

wanted to do business. It is further complained that after six months of

the marriage, the petitioner started harassing the complainant for

additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The elders of the petitioner also

supported him or else they will perform second marriage to the

petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner left the complainant at her parents'

house. The petitioner kicked the complainant when she was pregnant.

Due to such kicking the complainant lost her pregnancy after 15 days. In

February, 2002 the complainant came to know that A.2 to A.6 performed

another marriage to the petitioner with A.7 who belongs to Hyderabad.

A.8 to A.10 also agreed for their marriage though they know that the

petitioner was already married and not divorced. In that connection a

case in Cr.No.38 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494 r/w

109 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered

and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed

charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the said offences.

However, cognizance of the case was taken for the offences under

Sections 498-A r/w 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition

Act only but there was no mention about Section 494 IPC.

4 During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7

were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.4 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 offence under

Section 498-A of IPC alone and accordingly convicted and sentenced him

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to

pay fine of Rs.200/- 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.49 of 2011 on the file of the Court

of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, and the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, after reappreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the

appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

7 As far as the allegation regarding harassment meted out by the

petitioner is concerned, P.W.1 the victim and P.W.2 father of the victim

have categorically supported the prosecution case and stated that the

petitioner harassed P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2.00

lakhs and left the victim at her parents' house twice. The evidence of

P.Ws.3 to 5 also would go to show that a panchayat was conducted

wherein the petitioner promised to look after the victim well and admitted

his guilt. The evidence available on record clinchingly establishes the

guilt of the petitioner. Leaving P.W.1 at her parents' house and

demanding additional dowry and kicking and causing termination of

pregnancy and putting conditions to take back her to matrimonial house

on the part of the petitioner are all the factors which establish the guilt of

the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. As seen from

the record, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC against the other accused

including the petitioner. Both the courts have concurrently held that the

petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, which

finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference of this Court

in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.

8 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.

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

judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner was in jail from 25.01.2012, on

which date the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, till 21.06.2012 when

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

10 In that view of the matter, since the offence is of the year 2002

and since the petitioner was already in jail for about five 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.

11 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