HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1096 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment delivered by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2002, dated 9.6.2004, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed while confirming judgment dated 13.6.2003 of the learned Judicial Magiastrate of First Class, Nagari in C.C. No. 30 of 2000. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The revision petitioner-Accused (for short ‘the accused’) and the defacto complainant, namely, D. Jayanthi fell in love with each and married on 20.6.1984. They were blessed with a male child out of their wedlock. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know that the accused married one Sumathi of their own caste on 25.8.1996. When she questioned him about that, the accused stated that for getting a share in a property, he had done so and promised that he would look after her and the son properly. But, thereafter, the accused completely neglected them and unable to bear the same, she returned to her parents house at Bugga Agraharam. Even though mediations were held thereafter, the accused refused to take them back. Then the defacto complainant filed a private complaint, basing on which the case was registered in Crime No. 10 of 2000 on the file of Nagari P.S. Further on the completion of the investigation of the case, the police filed charge sheet. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P13. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. On the consideration of the material available, the trial Court, found the accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A and accordingly convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default to pay compensation of Rs. 1200/- to her. He, however, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC whereas challenging the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, the accused preferred the appeal before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Tirupathi, which was dismissed and consequently the present revision is filed. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgments passed by the Courts below ? Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Mainly it is contended on behalf of the accused that there was no legal marriage between the accused and the defacto complainant which is not established also and there was a gap of 4 months in giving the report to the police or filing the complaint before the Court and the question of cruelty is not established in any case and the prosecution failed to establish the charge and the Courts below failed to consider and appreciate the matter properly. The defacto complainant as P.W.1 and P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed about the marriage and long cohabitation between the first of them and the accused and also treating of the first of them with cruelty by the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In catena of decisions various High Courts and the Apex Court held that long cohabitation between a male and female proves existence of valid marriage between them. The presumption is not rebutted by the accused. The Courts below properly examined the evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. However, with regards to the sentence, the revision petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2000, by reason of which, he must have lost good part of his valuable life and realised definitely his folly and repented. Hence, examining all the relevant circumstances, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year imposed on the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is reduced to four months, keeping the fine clause in tact. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 19.7.2011 pnb