THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.NO.116 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is filed against the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole and Crl.A.No.137 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole. The accused was charged with an offence under Sections.306 and 417 IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused fell in love with one Miss Paleti Jayakumari and promised her to marry and when the parents of the girl came to the house of the accused, the accused pleaded ignorance of his love affair and he denied the relationship and consequently the deceased committed suicide on 31-07-2005 at about 7.30 P.M. The accused was tried for both the offences by the trial court and convicted for an offence under Sections.417 and 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I for one month for the offence under Section.417 IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo S.I for a period of one month for the offence under Section.306 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal being Crl.A.No.137 of 2006 and the learned first Appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section.306 IPC and upheld the finding of the trial court with regard to conviction and sentence under Section.417 IPC. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section.417 IPC is legal and sustainable? POINT:- In order to appreciate the prosecution case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is to be looked into and their evidence goes to show that there was a promise by the accused to marry the deceased since there was a love affair, but, however subsequently the accused has denied such a relationship. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Even in the cross- examination of these witnesses, the above conduct is not seriously discredited. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for an offence under Section.417 IPC cannot be said to be bad. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the accused was in jail for nearly 40 days and the lower court has imposed the punishment of three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- and a leniet view may be taken as he has recently married. Therefore, taking into consideration the above submission, the period of imprisonment, which has already undergone by the revision petitioner, is treated as a sentence of imprisonment and further he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1300/-, in default he shall undergo S.I for a period of three months for the offence under Section.417 IPC. Since the fine of Rs.1000/- for an offence under Section 306 IPC is ordered to be refunded and if it is not taken, it can be adjusted for the enhanced fine. If the amount was returned, the accused shall deposit the fine amount within one month. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 28-11-2011 TSNR