HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.86 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.67 of 2003 dated 04.12.2003, whereby the learned Judge, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner- A1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., imposed against the petitioner-A1 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.587 of 2001 dated 09.06.2003, to one year rigorous imprisonment. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-A1 and one Anitha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) took place in the month of February, 1996 and at the time of marriage, the parents of deceased gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and other gold and silver ornaments worth about Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry. Thereafter, the deceased was blessed with two female children. It is stated that since the date of marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and also Hero Honda Motorcycle. The deceased was beaten and sent away on the plea that she was blessed with two female children. It is further stated that A-1 harassed the deceased at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 for additional dowry. Therefore, the deceased, who was vexed with her life due to the harassment of the accused, committed suicide on 08.09.2000 at 7.00 A.M. by consuming poison. She was also administered poison to her two children, aged about 3 ½ and 2 ½ years respectively and they were also died. Subsequently, the elder brother of the deceased (P.W.1) lodged a complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No.48 of 2000 was registered under Section 304-B of I.P.C. against the accused and after completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused. The accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 and P26 and M.O.1 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A2 and A-3 for the offences with which they were charged, found the petitioner-A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the petitioner-A1 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and accordingly he was acquitted for the said charge. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner-A1, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, reduced the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. to one year rigorous imprisonment, while confirming the sentence of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by the appellate Court, but, however, he requested this Court to take a lenient view in the matter since the petitioners had undergone imprisonment for a period of more than five months. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioner- A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 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 had undergone remand period from 25.09.2000 to 26.12.2000 i.e., about three months. Further, the criminal appeal was partly allowed by the appellate Court on 04.12.2003 and the petitioner-A1 was taken into custody on the same day itself and that the petitioner-A1 came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 21.01.2004 after admitting this Criminal revision. So it is clear from the record that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about five 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 rigorous imprisonment of one year to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-A1. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.67 of 2003, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner- A1 has already undergone. The petitioner-A1 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 09-11-2010 Gsn.