THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1328 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein and two others were tried in C.C.No.62 of 1998 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur for the offences punishable under sections 352 and 497 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.6. The learned Magistrate, having analysed the said evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the other accused are guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 497 of IPC and further convicted and sentenced all the accused including the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under section 352 r/w 34 of IPC, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. As against the said judgment dated 30.07.2002 passed by the trial court, all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while re- appreciating the entire evidence and concurring with the findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal by his judgment dated 26.08.2003. As stated supra, aggrieved thereby the first accused in the said case preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts are that the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in the case lodged a private complaint before the trial court stating that accused 1 and 2 are brothers. A.3 is the wife of the de facto complainant. The marriage between the de facto complainant and A.3 took place about 20 years back at P. Kothapalli and they were blessed with a son and two daughters and that they performed the marriages of their daughters also. It is further stated that A.3 used to go to coolie work in the field of the A.1. Taking advantage of the innocence of the de facto complainant, A.1 developed illicit intimacy with A.3 and had sexual intercourse with her for two years. On coming to know about the same, the de facto complainant admonished his wife i.e. A.3 and A.1, but they did not care him. While so on one day A.1 took away A.3 from the house of the de facto complainant along with cash of Rs.8,000/- and some gold ornaments. On 25.02.1998 the complainant asked the A.1 about his high handed behaviour. Then all the accused formed into a group and beat him indiscriminately and scolded him in filthy language. Thereupon at the intervention of passers by, the matter was pacified. Thereafter the de facto complainant lodged a report with the police and as no action has been taken against the accused, he approached the trial court and filed the private complaint, which was taken on file for the alleged offences punishable under sections 352 and 497 r/w 34 of IPC. 3 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to prove that there is illegal intimacy between the petitioner and A.3 is totally baseless. Apparently from the record it is clear that A.3 is the wife of the de facto complainant who is arrayed as private respondent herein. In fact, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1, had, in unequivocal terms stated that A.3 is his wife and the petitioner herein developed illegal intimacy with her and despite the advice of the petitioner as well as the village elders they continued the illegal intimacy and thereafter A.3 left the house of the de facto complainant with gold and cash of Rs.8,000/- The said evidence of P.W.1 is supported by one independent witness who was examined as P.W.2 and his daughter who was examined as P.W.3. In fact, the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 alone made the courts below to come to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the petitioner and others are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4 The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that his marriage with A.3 was performed about 20 years back at P. Kothapalli and they were blessed with a son and two daughters. In the light of said clinching evidence this court is unable to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no proof establishing the marriage between the de facto complainant and A.3. If the petitioner wants to rebut the said evidence of P.W.1 he should have examined some body else to prove that there is no valid marriage between the de facto complainant and A.3 and in the absence of any such cogent and convincing evidence from the side of the petitioner in that regard, question of complainant leading adulterous life with A.3 does not arise. These aspects were taken by the courts below into consideration in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the offence for which he was convicted, which in my considered view, needs no interference. 5 However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence relates to the year 1998, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. 6 Accordingly the said sentence of simple imprisonment for two years imposed by the Courts below is reduced to that of six months. Excepting the above modification this revision in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 19.08.2010 Kvsn