IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1174 OF 2004 Between: Mohammed Mukhtar ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1174 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the Judgment, dated 01.07.2004, in Crl.A.No.167 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner/A1 of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, recorded in the judgment, dated 21.11.2003, in C.C.No.51 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision case may be stated as follows: PW.1 is no other than the wife of the petitioner herein/A1. Their marriage was performed at Chirala on 02.07.1989. At the time of marriage, parents of PW.1 presented cash of Rs.25,000/-, gold and other house hold articles to the accused. Thereafter she joined the petitioner at Thadikonda. The petitioner started harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry. Later, they shifted their family to Hyderabad. There also the petitioner was harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry. Unable to bear the harassment, PW.1 went to her parents house at Chirala. Thereafter, the petitioner married again. On coming to know the same, PW.1 along with her parents went to Hyderabad, but they were necked out from the house. Hence, she lodged a complaint with the police. Police registered a case against A1 under Section 498A I.P.C. and against A2 to A5 under Section 498A read with 109 I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. A charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was framed against A1 and a charge under Section 498A read with 109 I.P.C. were framed against A2 to A5, and when the same were read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no oral evidence, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were got marked on behalf of defence. 6. The trial Court upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, found A1 committed an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., and A2 to A5 committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with 109 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them. On appeal, the conviction and sentence against A2 to A5 were set aside by the appellate Court on the ground that there was no evidence of abetment. But the conviction and sentence against the petitioner herein were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by A1. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an abnormal delay in lodging the complaint from the date of offence; that having given a benefit of doubt to A2 to A5, the same benefit of doubt should have been extended to A1 also and hence, she prays to set aside the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered with inasmuch as the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would clearly go to show that it is A1 who was harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- and therefore, both the Courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. This court while exercising the revisional powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot sit over as in an appeal so as to re- appreciate the evidence. Unless it is shown that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse, or contrary to law or illegal or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. For the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., prosecution has to establish that (i) the willful conduct of the petitioner, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of her; (ii) or harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. These are the two ingredients for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Explanation to the first part of 498A I.P.C. i.e., clause (i) has no application to the present case, because it is not a case where the acts of the accused are likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide. With regard to second part, if any unlawful demand is made, it is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. 12. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is very clear that after the marriage, PW.1 was being harassed by the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. If the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is to be accepted that there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-, then it can be said to be a cruelty. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that except the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 3, there is no other evidence with regard to the unlawful demand of dowry. Mere interestedness is not a ground to discredit the testimony of witnesses. Their evidence would clearly go to show that the accused harassed PW.1 in making unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/-. That is the reason why both the Courts below placed implicit reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 to base the conviction. None of the findings are shown to be illegal or incorrect or perverse. 14. Simply because A2 to A5 are acquitted on the same evidence, it does not mean that the petitioner has to be given the same benefit. On the ground that there is no evidence to show that A2 to A5 instigated A1 to harass PW.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-, they were acquitted because of lack of evidence. But insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is a clear and unambiguous evidence which would go to show that the petitioner was harassing PW.1 for additional dowry of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the conviction of A1 recorded by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate court needs no interference by this court. 15. With regard to the sentence, ten years has been lapsed. The petitioner has been attending the appellate Court and trial Court nearly for about five or six years. Hence, a lenient view can be taken with regard to the sentence. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., recorded by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, dated 21.11.2003, in C.C.No.51 of 2002, and as confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Ongole, vide judgment, dated 01.07.2004, in Crl.A.No.167 of 2003. But the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from simple imprisonment for one year to simple imprisonment for six (6) months, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Period of detention, if any, underwent by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 08, 2010 MD