IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 6 3 0 OF 2005 Between: Sanjay Singh & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.K. Ranjith Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor The court made the following : order …. Follows 2nd page THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6 3 0 OF 2005 ORDER : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No. 25 of 2004 dated 08-4-2005 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate in CC.No. 158 of 2000 dated 20-1-2004 against both the petitioners under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and they were acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Both the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial court is confirmed. With regard to the quantum of sentence, a lenient view was taken against both the petitioners. With regard to A-1 instead of (2) years, the sentence is reduced to six months for the offence under section 498-A of IPC. In respect of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the sentence of six months imposed by the trial court is reduced to (3) months, while confirming the fine amounts under sections 498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act remained intact. In respect of second petitioner, a lenient view was taken and sentence against her under section 498-A IPC is reduced to one month of simple imprisonment and also under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the second petitioner’s conviction and sentence was reduced to one month only instead of six months and the fine amount remained intact. Both the sentences against the petitioners shall run concurrently. 2. The petitioners were tried for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, convicted and sentenced A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further sentenced undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further A-2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 498-A of IPC. Further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to run the sentences concurrently against both the petitioners. On appeal, the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate in CC.No. 158 of 2000 dated 20-1-2004 against both the petitioners under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is set aside and they were acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Both the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial court is confirmed. With regard to the quantum of sentence, a lenient view was taken against both the petitioners. With regard to A-1 instead of (2) years, the sentence is reduced to six months for the offence under section 498- A of IPC. In respect of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the sentence of six months imposed by the trial court is reduced to (3) months, while confirming the fine amounts under sections 498-A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act remained intact. In respect of second petitioner, a lenient view was taken and sentence against her under section 498-A IPC is reduced to one month of simple imprisonment and also under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the second petitioner’s conviction and sentence was reduced to one month only instead of six months and the fine amount remained intact. Both the sentences against the petitioners shall run concurrently. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners confine his argument with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the same is confirmed, but however, the sentences of imprisonment inflicted is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioners in view of the fact that the marriage has been already dissolved and articles were returned to the defacto complainant and the offence pertains to the year 1999. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioners shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 12-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 6 3 0 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 22 Date: 12-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L