HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE509 OF 2004 DATED 21ST JUNE, 2010 BETWEEN Rapur Dola Krishna …..Petitioner/AccusedNo.1 and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor and anr …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 509 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case Under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled against the judgment dated 22.03.2004 passed in Crl.A.No. 212 of 2002 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, conﬁrming the conviction and sentence imposed by the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, in the order dated 22.8.2002 passed in C.C.No. 69 of 1999. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that: The marriage between P.W.1 and A.1 was solemnized on 17.2.1997 in Tholappa Gardens,Tiruchanoor in the presence of the family members, relatives and other interested persons of both sides. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the accused as dowry, and in addition, to the same, gold armaments were also gifted to P.W.1 worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. After the marriage, P.W.1 lived with the Accused happily for one month and thereafter, the accused started harassing her demanding additional dowry in connection with the marriage of A.4. P.W.1 informed the same to her parents. However, A.2 to A.4 did not allow A.1 to lead matrimonial life with P.W.1. On 28.10.1997 P.W.1 blessed with a male child at her parents house and ﬁve months thereafter, when the P.W.1 came to her matrimonial home, the accused did now allow her into the matrimonial home. On that pretext, P.W.1 gave a police report, then the accused allowed P.W.1 into the house, however, they continued their harassment and ill treatment and ﬁnally on 6.3.1998 P.W.1 was necked out from the house of the accused. Thereafter P.W.1 was living with her parents. In this connection, P.W.1 gave a report, which was registered and investigated into. Cognisance of the oﬀence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC was taken against all the accused. The trial Court, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found A.1 guilty of the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A of the IpC. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to under go R.I. for one year and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.500/- in default to suﬀer SI for three months. However, the Court below found A.2 to A.4 not guilty of the oﬀence punishable under the said charge and acquitted them of the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal and the lower appellate Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, conﬁrmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revision. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint ﬁled by the defacto complainant was after ﬁling of H.M.O.P.No. 31 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Family Court, Tirupathi by the petitioner herein and that, she has not stated regarding the demand of dowry of Rs.40,000/- in the complaint ﬁled before the concerned Magistrate. It is fairly an improvement made in the case during the course of trial before the Court below and further it is stated that she has not lived with the petitioner for long time and she left the matrimonial home on her own accord. This Court is not inclined to accept these submissions since there is evidence that due to some strained relationships only the petitioner is behaving with the defacto complainant in rude manner and some times he caused injury to the defacto complainant. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may show some lenience on the petitioner while interfering with the imposition of sentence of imprisonment by the courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are living separately, and that the petitioner has already suﬀered a stigma of conviction in the society, this Court thought it ﬁt to show some lenience on the petitioner insofar as the imposition of sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the Courts below is conﬁrmed. However, the sentence imposed by the Courts below is set aside and in its place, this Court directs the petitioner to pay a ﬁne of Rs.5,000/- apart from the fine amount imposed by the Courts below, within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order is made ready. Subject to the above modiﬁcation in sentence, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED.21-06-2010. Msnr.