HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1926 of 2003 DATE:03.03.2010 Between: Vaddi Srinivasarao … Petitioner And The State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1926 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner-A.1 along with seven others was tried by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, in C.C.No.266 of 1992 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. Having been satisfied with the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the other accused not guilty of the offence, but found the petitioner guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, while acquitting the other accused for the said offence, by judgment dated 25.10.1999. Challenging the same, the petitioner-A.1 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.241 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tanuku. But, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal, by his judgment, dated 23.12.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-A.1 preferred this revision. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 had taken place on 24.04.1992 at the house of P.W.3 and the marriage was consummated. Knowing fully well that P.W.1 is having stammering defect, the accused agreed for the marriage. At the time of marriage, P.W.2 -brother of P.W.1, gave Acs.2.00 of land, 16 sovereigns of gold and Rs.40,000/- as dowry, to the accused. 15 days after the marriage, A.1 started harassing P.W.1 and subjecting her to cruelty demanding more dowry and also insisting her to sell the land. When P.W.1 refused to do so, A.1 forcibly took away the sale deed registered in her favour. All the accused used to abuse P.W.1 and beat her on some pretext or other. Ultimately, all the accused made P.W.1 leave the matrimonial house on 22.5.92, by their harassment and cruelty. P.W.2 tried to set right the things with the assistance of elders, but in vain. Subsequently, P.W.2 filed a complaint before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, who in turn, forwarded the same to the P.S., Undrajavaram. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A.1 strenuously contended before this Court that the courts below erred in holding that the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of P.W.1, is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. As a counter blast to Ex.P.2 notice got issued by the petitioner-A.1 to P.W.1, P.W.2 gave the complaint, on the basis of which, the petitioner-A.1 and seven others were roped in as accused. In fact, the marriage between the petitioner and P.W.1 was never consummated and even the said fact was not established by the evidence of P.W.1. It is also his contention that there is abnormal delay in lodging the FIR and the courts below ought to have taken that aspect also into consideration while holding that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence. 5. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to various aspects of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but in my considered view, the said aspects cannot be gone into, in this revision. The courts below have meticulously weighed the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. In a revision, the scope of this Court is restricted and taken away the entire evidence as was done by the appellate court. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. In the light of the same, I see no merits in this revision. 6. However, as the alleged offence had taken place as early as in the year 1992 i.e. about 8 years ago and the petitioner-A1 had undergone the sentence of about 15 days as an under-trial prisoner and subsequent to disposal of the appeal, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of two years simple imprisonment imposed by the trial below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner-A.1. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two years imposed by the trial court against the petitioner-A1 is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. In so far as the fine amount is concerned, the same is maintained. ______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 3rd March, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1926 of 2003 (Disposed of ) Date:03-03-2010 CBS