HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 666 OF 2004 DATED 29th JUNE, 2010.
BETWEEN Athukuri Venkateswarlu …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor and anr …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 659 OF 2004
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 26.3.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2000 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC in the order dated 23.6.2000 in C.C.No. 20 of 1999 by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage between A.1 and de-facto complainant (P.W.1) was performed about ten years back from the date of complaint, as per the Hindu custom and usage. During the marriage, one lakh rupees was given to A.1 towards dowry apart from gold ornaments. After marriage, A.1 and P.W.1 lived happily with A.2 and A.3 in Karempudi for some time. During their wedlock, they were blessed with female child by name Yasoda Harika. Thereafter, A-1 was addicted to bad vices and used to harass P.W.1 without any reason on the instigation of A2 and A3. A1 to A.3 demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry and in that context, in the month of January, 1994, P.W.1 was driven out from her matrimonial home. The brother of P.W.1 intervened and paid Rs.20,000/- to A.1 and again after one year, A1 to A.3 repeated ill-treatment and harassment to P.W.1 for additional dowry. Lastly on 25.11.1998, A1 to A3 beat P.W.1 in blue and black and driven her out from their house. Based on the same the police registered a case and investigated into. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under Section 498-A and 406 IPC against A1 to A3. .
The trial Court on a full-fledged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the petitioner/A.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three year and also to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer SI for one month. The Trial Court, however, found A.1 to A.3 not guilty for the offence under Section 406 IPC and further A2 and A.3 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 346 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction, however, modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on A.1/petitioner from R.I. of three years to one year. Hence this revision.
It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the finding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. In the present case, on a perusal of the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below so as to interfere with the same.
However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner confining his argument to the inflicting of the sentence, submitted that the petitioner has suffered a stigma of conviction in the society; that the entire incident took place in the year 1998 and after lapse of twelve years, if the petitioner is sent to judicial custody, the same may cause prejudice to him and that the petitioner is now aged about 42 years, and he has to look after his family members as he being the breadwinner. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner can be shown some lenience insofar as the sentence ordered by the Court below is concerned.
As there is no serious objection from the side of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, and submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thought it fit to show some lenience on the petitioner. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is confirmed, however, sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused is modified and reduced to two months. Further the petitioner/A.1 is directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- apart from the fine amount already imposed by the Courts below, within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order is made ready.
Subject to the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 29th JUNE, 2010.
Msnr.