THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1951 of 2004 JUDGMENT: On the basis of a report given by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, a case in Crime No.17 of 1999 of Women Police Station, Eluru, was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The same was taken on file by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru as C.C.No.6 of 1999. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the defence, none was examined nor any documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 23.07.2001, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner-accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.161 of 2001 and the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 18.11.2004. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - P.W-1 is the wife of the accused and at the time of their marriage, the parents of P.W-1 gave dowry to the accused and that after P.W-1 joined the accused, he started harassing her both mentally and physically demanding to bring additional dowry and also developed illicit intimacy with one Thumpala Varalakshmi, whom he later married on 05.11.1997; that in the month of April, 1997 the accused necked out P.W-1 from the marital home and at the instance of the elder P.W-1 joined the accused, but there was no change in his behaviour and he again necked her out of the marital home. As such, P.W-1 gave a complaint to the Police against the accused, which was investigated into and the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, submitted that the petitioner was in jail for five days and requested this Court to take a lenient view and acquit the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the record. Apparently, the impugned judgment was pronounced on 18.11.2004 and immediately, the petitioner was sent to jail to suffer the imprisonment imposed on him. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 23.11.2004, he was released from the jail. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was in jail for five days. Hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR