THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.568 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District in C.C.No.1720 of 2008 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.09.2010 the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2010 before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings given by the trial court, and dismissing the said appeal, however, reduced the said sentence of imprisonment from one year to that of six months by judgment dated 08.02.2011. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the second accused. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant Golla Swarnalatha. At the time of marriage Rs.2,00,000/- cash was given to the petitioner towards dowry besides ten tolas of gold and other articles. During their wedlock they were blessed with two female children. Subsequently the petitioner started harassing P.W.1 by taking her salary for his luxuries. The petitioner also suspected the fidelity of P.W.1 and harassed her. Though the matter was placed before the elders, there was no change in his attitude. The petitioner used to often beat P.W.1 and he also used to torture P.W.1 to get more money from her parents. 3 When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, he requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 4 Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court looked into the record. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 08.02.2011 and from then onwards the petitioner is in jail. Thus from the last two months the petitioner is in jail. Having regard to the fact that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is only for a period of six months and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had already served a sentence of more than two months by now, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the court below is concerned. 5 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2010 by judgment dated 08.02.2011 is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. ___________ 10.03.2011 Kvsn