THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1590 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned V Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.141 of 2002 dated 11.10.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said appeal modified the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.229 of 1997 for the offence punishable under section 498- A of IPC. 2 Facts in brief are that the petitioner married the de facto complainant Chandrakala and at the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave Rs.51,051/- towards dowry and also presented 1.5 tolas of gold and house hold articles worth Rs.10,000/. After the marriage Chandrakala joined the petitioner and after some time the petitioner started harassing her with a demand of additional dowry. On one occasion the petitioner had taken away all her gold ornaments from her body, forcibly beat her and threatened her that he would set her ablaze if she won’t leave that place and thereafter he brought his wife i.e. complainant to Hyderabad and left her at her parents house and demanded Rs.1 Lakh as additional dowry. Thereafter the complainant filed a private complaint before the trial court, which was referred to the police as provided for under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. 3 The trial court, after analysing the entire evidence both oral and documentary found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. As against the said judgment dated 02.04.2002 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2002 and the leaned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by her judgment dated 11.10.2002 dismissed the said appeal, but modified the said sentence to the effect that the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and shall also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and for the offence punishable under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and shall return the amount of Rs.51,051/- received by him from the father of the complainant for the benefit of the complainant within one month from the date of judgment. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 4 Heard. 5 The appeal was dismissed on 11.10.2002 and this court granted bail on 29.10.2002. Thus the accused was in jail for a period of nearly twenty days. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that initially the petitioner was in jai for about 10 days. 6 In view of the fact that the said offence is of the year 1997 and as the accused was made roaming form one court to another for all these years, this court is of the view that trauma which the accused has suffered all these years itself is a sufficient punishment for the offence committed by him. 7 Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this court, without going into the merits of the case, holds that the said sentence of three months simple imprisonment can be reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 8 Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects, is dismissed. --------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010