Telangana High Court
Mukkurala Prabhu , Prabhu Goud, Medak ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep.By Pp., High Court, ... on 8 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1409 OF 2011
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment
and conviction dated 14.06.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.34 of
2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC) at Medak (for short 'the appellate
Court') by reversing the Judgment dated 15.10.2008 passed
in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial First
Class Magistrate at Narsapur (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shailaja @ Lavanya
(victim) filed the complaint in Police Station, Jinnaram on
06.03.2006 stating that her marriage was performed with
M.Prabu goud (petitioner herein/accused No.1) in the
presence of elders and at the time of marriage, parents of
victim gave 10 Tulas of gold, Rs.40,000/-cash for Motorcycle
and Rs.30,000/- on two occasions and they also gave
Almarah, cot clothes, household articles worth Rs.15,000/-.
After the marriage, they lived happily for three months.
Later on, the petitioner and his family members started
harassing the victim for want of additional dowry and they
used to abuse her in a filthy language and they used to beat
her. About three months, the petitioner beat the victim and
he left her in her parent's house along with motorcycle and
demanded to bring Rs.50,000/-, failing which, he will go for
second marriage. Accordingly, he got second marriage.
When the victim and his parents along with elders went and
enquired from victim's in-laws, then they said to do whatever
they want and the petitioner further told her to come and
join with him and he will also maintain her.
3. Basing on the said complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police
(for short SI), Jinnaram has registered a case in Crime No.44
of 2006 under Sections 498-A and 494 of Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') and issued FIR. Then S.I. recorded the
statements of witnesses. On 03.05.2006 he apprehended
petitioner/accused No.1 and on his interrogation the
petitioner/accused No.1 confessed his offence along with
accused Nos.2 to 7. Then the petitioner was sent to judicial
remand. On 17.05.2006 accused Nos.2 to 7 surrendered
before the Court. After completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed before the trial Court. Upon that the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the case and taken on file as
C.C.No.182 of 2006.
4. In support of his case, the prosecution examined PWs.1
to 4 and got marked exhibits P1 and P2.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the learned Magistrate has passed the judgment
in C.C.No.182 of 2006 which reads as under:
"26. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 298 (A) of IPC., and they
are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1)
Cr.P.C".
6. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused
No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court
and the learned appellate Court after considering the facts
and circumstances and upon perusing the Judgment in
C.C.No.182 of 2006, has allowed the criminal appeal by
passing the following order:
"25. For the above reasons, the lower Court had
committed error in acquitting accused No.1. Therefore,
the judgment of the lower Court is modified by
convicting and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo R.I.
for 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default,
to undergo S.I. for 2 months for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 7 are acquitted
for the said offence.
26. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.
Modifying the judgment dated 15.10.2008 passed by
the learned JFCM, Narsapur in C.C.No.182 of 2006 by
convicting and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment of three years and also to pay
fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 7 are acquitted
for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Hence
accused No.1 is directed to surrender before the lower
Court within 30 days from the date of this judgment to
serve the sentence, failing which lower Court is
directed to issue NBW against accused No.1."
Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is
preferred.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
No.1 did not place anything before this Court, which would
discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference
warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard
to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took
place long back and during the period the revision
petitioner/accused No.1 must have repented for what he did.
In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is
expedient to reduce the sentence of conviction for a period of
one month S.I while maintaining the fine.
9. This Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by
reducing the sentence imposed by the appellate Court from
three years Rigorous Imprisonment to one month Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
10. Except the above modification of the sentence, no
further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to
the order passed by the learned appellate Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 08.02.2024
vsu
