THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1950 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the wife of the first petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police Indukurpet Police station Nellore District registered a case in Cr.No.63 of 1991 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and two others. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.6 of 1992 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. During the course of evidence, the complainant / wife was examined as P.W.1 and 13 more witnesses were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.4 were marked on her behalf. During the course of trial, the third accused in the case i.e. father of the first petitioner and fourth accused i.e. one of the sisters of the first petitioner died and thus the case against them was abated. On analysis of the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the petitioners i.e. A.1 (husband) A.2 (mother of A.1), A.5 (elder sister of A.1) and A.6 (brother in law of A.1) as follows: a) All the accused were acquitted of the charge punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. b) First petitioner was found guilty of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and was accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also 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 498-A of IPC and was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six moths and also 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. c) The mother of the first petitioner i.e. A.2 was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. d) Petitioners 3 and 4 (A.5 & A.6) who are the elder sister and brother in law respectively of the first petitioner were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2 As against the said judgment dated 28.09.1999, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal NO.154 of 1999 and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore while dismissing the said appeal confirmed the said sentences imposed by the trial court vide his judgment dated 30.09.2003. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the first petitioner with the complainant was performed on 12.10.1989. At the time of marriage the first petitioner was given Rs.15,000/- towards dowry besides ten sovereigns of gold. Three months subsequent to the marriage, all the accused started harassing the victim who was examined as P.W.1 for additional dowry. When the mother and brother of P.W.1 who were examined as P.W.2 and 4 went to the house of the accused and requested them to send P.W.1 along with them to their house as she was pregnant, the accused did not send her. Before the Dasara festival of 1990 P.W.3 and 4 gave Rs.5,000/- and a table fan to the accused as per their demand and requested the accused to send P.W.1 to their house, but the accused did not send her. Though P.W.2 along with the elders who were examined as P.Ws.11 and 12 went to the house of the accused and there the elders advised the accused to send P.W.1 to her parents house for some time, but the accused did not heed their words. On 26.09.1991 the brothers in law of P.W.1 went to the house of accused and brought P.W.1 to the house of her brother P.W.2 where P.W.4 noticed some injuries on the body of P.W.1. When asked, P.W.1 informed that her mother in law caused the injuries to her. Ultimately, having not able to bear with the harassment meted out by the accused, the victim i.e. P.W.1 lodged a report before the Indukur Police whereupon the law was set into motion. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5 Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and also perusing the judgments of both the courts below, this court is of the view that it is not a case for interference. The evidence of P.W.1 i.e. the victim coupled with the evidence of other witnesses clearly establishes that there was harassment for additional dowry, which attracts the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in jail for a period of 20 days and the same was confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, as the alleged offence took place in the year 1991 and the petitioners were in jail for some period, this court is of the view that a lenient view may be taken. 7 Accordingly while dismissing this revision, the said sentence imposed by the courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioners, however, by imposing a fine of Rs.2,500/- each totaling to Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioners to the victim within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial court shall see that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid to the victim. If for any reason the said amount, as imposed above, is not paid, it is, needless to observe that the petitioners shall undergo the said sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the courts below. --------------- 04.06.2010 Kvsn