THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1315 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment made in Crl.A.No.76 of 2003 dated 24.10.2003 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal confirming conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2002 dated 14.11.2002 on the file of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. The accusation made against the revision petitioner-A1 (for short ‘A1’) is that he along with his father (A2) in the case harassed his wife Shaheen Sultana (deceased) for want of additional dowry and in view of the said harassment meted out to her, on 27.4.2001 she poured kerosene on herself and set ablaze and thereafter she succumbed to the injuries. The P.S. Mills Police Station, Warangal on a report given registered the case in Cr.No.109 of 2001 under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the Police after conducting the investigation of the case, filed charge sheet. Before the trial Court, for the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 were marked. For the defence, none was examined, but Ex.D1 portion of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.1 was marked. The trial Court after a detailed consideration of the matter, held that the prosecution established its case against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt and the case against A2 was not proved and accordingly A1 was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas being aggrieved thereby, Crl.A.No.76 of 2003 was filed and it was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and therefore the present revision is filed. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the petitioner-accused has already undergone the period of detention imposed by the Courts below and hence the matter may be disposed of with a direction to release him under Section 428 Cr.P.C. No dispute is raised with regard to the findings recorded by the Courts below, hence there is no need to consider the merits of the same. Further, if the accused has already undergone the period of detention as directed by the trial Court, he is to be set free, setting off the period of detention. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court with a direction to set off the period of remand under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and if the petitioner has already completed the period of imprisonment imposed against him, he shall be set at liberty unless he is required in any other case. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 29.7.2011 DA