THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.103 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused persons under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC') in C.C.No.157 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant PW.1 is wife of accused No.1 and she was married on 02.05.2004 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of A.1. At the time of marriage, some ornaments and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- were given. It is alleged that after the marriage, on the eve of Nagula Chavithi festival, the mother of PW.1 asked the accused persons to send PW.1 to Adoni along with A.1, but A.1 did not go and PW.1 alone went and when A.1 was questioned, he stated that he does not like her as sufficient dowry was not given. He also claimed that there is a difference in the financial status of both the families. He demanded more dowry to bring from her parents and A.2 used to suggest PW.1 to commit suicide and she was not treated properly. Consequently, on a complaint given by PW.1, a crime was registered and investigated into and charge sheet was laid against all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. After the evidence of the prosecution is over, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and DW.1 was examined. 4. After considering the evidence on record, all the accused were found guilty of offence under Section 498-A IPC and the learned Magistrate sentenced A.1 and A.3 for simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and pay a fine of Rs.300/- each and A.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. As against that, the appeal was preferred and the appellate Court confirmed the said conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 5. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the accused are of the guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC? 2) Whether the sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur, and confirmed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is proper? 6. POINTS: In support of the prosecution case, PW.1, the wife of A.1, PWs.2 and 3, father and mother of PW.1 respectively, were examined and they have spoken about the manner in which PW.1 was treated and as to how shortly after the marriage, the disputes have arisen. PW.4 is said to be a neighbour and he also spoke about the harassment meted out to PW.1. PW.5 did not support the prosecution case and PW.6 is the Investigating Officer. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that except the interested evidence of PWs.1 to 3, there is no other evidence and the theory of an attempted suicide, which is accepted by the lower appellate Court, is also not proved and therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not valid. 8. Evidently, the marital life between A.1 and PW.1 was only for a period of three months and in fact, at the time of marriage, some cash and gold ornaments were said to have been given. It is stated in the evidence that the 1st accused did not accompany PW.1 to her parents house on the 1st festival day and further, he claimed that the financial status between both the families is different and consequently, the disputes arose and the harassment started. Both the Courts below have analysed the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and accepted the same. The only explanation of the appellants for PW.1 to lodge a false complaint that she wanted A.1 to live away from his parents and as he did not oblige to come and live at Adoni, the present complaint has been falsely lodged. This explanation does not appear to be an acceptable one in view of the fact that A.1 is only son to the parents and consequential request for shifting of A.1 to Adoni is not in the interest of PW.1 or the family. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no reason to disagree with them and particularly considering the judgment in the revision on a question of fact. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners claimed that the lenience may be shown as accused have already suffered part of the sentence. According to him, A.1 and A.3 were in jail for a period of one month each and A.2 was said to be in jail for a period of 12 days. Therefore, taking into consideration the above submission, the sentence of imprisonment of A.2 and A.3 for a period of three months and six months respectively is reduced to the period already undergone and they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. So far as A.1 is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment is of six months is reduced to the period already undergone and he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of above fine, the sentence awarded by the Courts below shall be suffered. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:04-11-2011 INL