HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C. No.944 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak, in Crl.A.No.97 of 2009, dated 14.12.2010 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, imposed against the revision petitioner- accused, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak, in S.C.No.294 of 2007 dated 10.12.2009. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of second daughter of P.W.1 viz., Amrutha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was performed with the accused about nine years prior to the date of incident and at the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave one tula of gold, 50 tulas of silver anklets and household articles to the accused as dowry. Due to their wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter and one son. It is stated that four years after the marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally and unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire on 09.03.2007 and while taking treatment in Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, she succumbed to burn injuries on 11.03.2007. P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police and basing on which a case in Crime No.31 of 2007 was registered and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Hathnoora Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and that the accused was tried for the said offences. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 and P9 and M.O.1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C., found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. In an appeal preferred by the accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the revision petitioner-accused. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner-accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it is clear from the record that the revision petitioner-accused was in judicial custody from 24.03.2007 to 26.04.2007 i.e., for a period of 34 days. Further the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 14.12.2010 and immediately the revision petitioner was taken into custody and as on this day he is in jail. So it is clear from the record that the revision petitioner-accused had undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment i.e., for a period of four months. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner-accused to that of the period already undergone by him. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year, imposed against the revision petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., by the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner- accused, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against him. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 21-03-2011 Gsn.