THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2083 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.122 of 2004 by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad confirming the judgment dated 27.4.2004 made by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.22 of 2000. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner-accused is the husband of P.W.1-P. Padmaja and he developed illicit affair with one Vijaya Laxmi and started pressuring P.W.1 to sell the house to collect the money and hand over the same to the said Vijaya Lakshmi and that on 15.5.1999, the accused beat P.W.1 and caused injury to her and threatened to kill her as she is not accepting to sell the house. On the complaint, a case in Crime No.218 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner-accused and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.22 of 2000. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the said offences and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 498-A IPC; and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each of the offences under sections 323 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.122 of 2004 before the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner-accused filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of three days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the offence is of the year 1999 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of three days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under sections 498-A IPC imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine for the offences under section 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2083 of 2004 10.3.2011