THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.5 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.117 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial 1st Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram, where under the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, as against which Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2005 was preferred on the file of the Court of Sessions at Vizianagaram and the same was dismissed, confirming the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 2 The case of the prosecution is that the complainant who was examined as P.W.1 was married to the revision petitioner and during their lawful wedlock a child was born and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.30,000/- was paid and thereafter there was a demand for additional dowry. Added to that, the petitioner was said to have developed illicit intimacy with one Krishnaveni and subjecting P.W.1 to cruelty and neglected her to maintain and consequently she has been put to harassment. The parents of the petitioner were also charged, but, however, they have been acquitted. 3 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no proof of demand of dowry and therefore, the conviction under section 498-A of IPC is not valid. 4 This plea of the counsel for the petitioner about the failure to prove dowry demand and acquittal of A.2 and A.3 as a circumstance in that regard has to be taken into consideration. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that there were acts of mental cruelty against the revision petitioner since he has neglected her and developed illicit intimacy with another woman and living with her. In fact, the husband of said Krishnaveni is said to have filed a divorce O.P. basing on the same allegations that were made by P.W.1. Both the courts below have assessed the evidence of P.W.1 and came to a conclusion that the conduct of the revision petitioner squarely applies to the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, I do not think there are any merits to come to a different conclusion in the appreciation of the testimony of P.W.1, which by itself is sufficient to prove the conduct of the revision petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings are pending since long time and the petitioner was in jail for more than three weeks. Taking the said contention into consideration, while confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and the period of sentence which he has already undergone shall be treated as period of imprisonment. If the fine amount is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo the imprisonment of six months as imposed by the Courts below. From out of the said fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, an amount of Rs.8,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1. 5 With the above modification, the revision is disposed of. ------------------------------- N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J. 31.10.2011 Kvsn