HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1868 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, in Crl.A.No.223 of 2003, dated 12.10.2004 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 and also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month imposed against the revision petioner-A2, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C, by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, in C.C.No.121 of 2000 dated 23.10.2003. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with Accused No.1 on 24.02.1995 and at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- and 2 sovereign of gold as dowry. Due to their wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. However, the accused No.1 has addicted to bad vices and started harassing P.W.1, at the instigation of other accused, for bringing additional dowry and unable to bear the said harassment, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the police and basing on which a case in Crime No.78 of 1999 was registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on the file of Palakoderu Police Station and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused and that the accused were tried for the said offence. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A-3 and A-4, found the revision petitioners- A1 and A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. The proceedings against A-5 were quashed by this Court. In an appeal preferred by the accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners 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 have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioners-A1 and A2. 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 petitioner-A1 was in judicial custody from 06.09.1999 to 05.11.1999, 10.03.2003 to 19.05.2003 and again from 18.08.2003 to 23.10.2003. Similarly, the revision petitioner-A2 was in judicial custody from 19.08.1999 to 07.09.1999. Further the criminal appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 12.10.2004 and immediately the revision petitioners were taken into custody and it is only after admission of this revision by this Court on 01.11.2004 and by virtue of bail granted by this Court, they were released from jail. So it is clear from the record that the revision petitioner-A1 was in jail for a period of seven months and the revision petitioner- A2 was in jail for a period of about two 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 petitioners-A1 and A2 to that of the period already undergone by them. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of Six months imposed against the revision petitioners-A1 and A2 respectively for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., by the learned II-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, in C.C.No.121 of 2000, as confirmed by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, in Crl.A.No.223 of 2003, are reduced to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioners-A1 and A2, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against them. The revision petitioners-A1 and A2 are directed to be set at liberty, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.