THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.744 of 2011 JUDGMENT: On the basis of a report given by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W-1, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Bondapalli Police Station, registered a case and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner herein and three others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram, has taken the same on file as C.C.No.166 of 2005. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, the de facto complainant got herself examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none was examined but, Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein-accused No.1 is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and the other accused- A-2 to A-4 are also not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and accordingly, acquitted them, but, however, found the petitioner herein- A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, by his judgment, dated 29.10.2007. The same was questioned by the petitioner herein- accused No.1 by filing Criminal Appeal No.112 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, who by his judgment, dated 07.03.2011, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The brief facts of the case are that P.W-1 was given in marriage to A-1; that at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W-1 i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3 gave dowry to A-1; that A-1 looked after P.W-1 for four years and subsequently, developed illicit intimacy with A-4 and that, at the instigation of A-4, A-1 used to harass P.W-1; that A-2 and A-3 also supported A-1 to harass P.W-1 and demanded to bring additional dowry. On the complaint given by the de facto complainant, a case was registered and after completion of investigation into the same, the charge sheet was filed before the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of about 20 days i.e., from 07.03.2004 to 25.03.2004. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 07.03.2004 and immediately, the petitioner-accused was taken into custody. Thus, it is clear that as on today, the petitioner is in jail for a period of about 20 days and hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the Courts below can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on the petitioner-A-1 by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 25th March 2011 DR