THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 Petitioner and three others were tried by the learned First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Sessions Case No.461 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 323 r/w 34, 307 and 307 r/w 114 of IPC. The learned First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, having analysed the entire evidence of the prosecution adduced in the shape of P.Ws.1 to 15 and Exs.P.1 to P.16, though came to the conclusion that the accused 2 to 4 are not guilty of the said offences for which they were tried, however, found the petitioner herein who was the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 307 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. Assailing the said judgment dated 31.07.2000, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2000 on the file of the court of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the said sentence imposed by the trial court dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 26.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this revision. 2 Brief facts are that P.W.1 i.e. the victim in the instant case is the wife of the petitioner and accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the petitioner herein who is the first accused in the case. That at the time of their marriage the parents of P.W.1 agreed to give Rs.25,000/- towards dowry and they paid the same in instalments. But, the petitioner used to illtreat the victim for want of additional dowry and P.W.1 used to inform the same to her parents through letters, the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with the fourth accused in the case and neglected and illtreated P.W.1 at the instance of the other accused. On 03.01.1999 at about 4.00 AM accused 1 to 3 asked P.W.1 to bring Rs.5,000/- towards dowry or to give divorce and when P.W1 refused to sign on divorce papers, the petitioner poured kerosene on her and that his parents i.e. A.2 and A.3 instigated him to set fire. P.W.1 escaped from the house and went to Samalkot to the house of P.W.2 and then P.Ws.1 and 2 appraoched Mahilamandali at Samalkot and from there they went to Thimmapuram Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 report. After completion of entire investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a major discrepancy with regard to pouring of kerosene and in that context he has drawn my attention to the evidence of the victim who was examined as P.W.1 and the President of Mahila Mandali who was examined as P.W.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the said major discrepancy the courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. In so far as the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the admitted amount of dowry is Rs.20,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.15,000/- was already paid and the balance is only Rs.5,000/-. According to him, the marriage took place about six years prior to the date of offence and it is not probable to believe that for the sake of Rs.5,000/- the appellant harassed the victim. 4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the said contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the courts below have weighed the evidence on record in correct perspective in holding the petitioner guilty of the said findings arrived at by the courts below need no interference. 5 In the light of the said submissions made by the counsel on either side, this court looked into the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. At Para No.2 of the deposition of P.W.1, she stated as follows: After the marriage I lived with my husband and parents in law in their house in Unduru village. We lived amicably for about 2 years Thereafter A.1 developed illicit intimacy with A.4 and completely neglected me and he was not even bothered about my food and other needs. A.1 and A.2 harasse me demanding to bring Rs.5,000/- or to sign on divorce papers. They also beat me. I did not bring any money or put the signatures on the divorce papers as demanded by them. They poured kerosene on my body and were about to set fire to my person. A.2 instigated A.1 to lit fire to my person. Apprehending danger, I escaped from them by coming out of the house and going to the house of my younger sister who has been residing at Samalkot. This took place about one year 6 months ago at about 4 A.M. The name of my younger sister in Samalkot is Kagita Vijaya (L.W.2). Then my sister Vijaya took me to Mahila Mandali people who are Dalamma and another. 6 From the said evidence, it appears that the petitioner and his father who was arrayed as A.2 poured kerosene on the body of the victim and when they were about to set fire she escaped. But in the evidence of P.W.3 i.e. the president of Mahila Mandali to whom P.W.1 stated, at the earliest point of time, that it was the mother-in- law and father-in-law i.e. A.2 and A.3 poured kerosene and thereafter according to the evidence of P.W.3, the victim escaped from the clutches of A.2 and A.3 and came to her (P.W.3). Definitely the said discrepancy, in my considered view, is a major one and the same is not explained and in fact there is no re-examination in that aspect. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt of the said charge and accordingly he is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. 7 In so far as the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the evidence on record reflects the harassment meted out by the petitioner towards the victim for want of additional dowry. May be it is true that the marriage took place six years prior to the date of offence and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was already paid and that the balance is only Rs.5,000/- But it does not mean that the petitioner is not harassing the victim for the payment of additional dowry. In fact the evidence of P.W.8 clearly proves the alleged harassment. P.W.9 who is none other than the brother of P.W.1 and he clearly stated that his sister used to write letters to him informing about the harassment of petitioner for want of additional dowry. The said letters are marked as Ex.P.4 to P.9. From a reading of the said letters, it is clear that P.W.1 has clearly stated the said harassment by the petitioner herein for payment of additional dowry. The said letters were not disputed by the defence. 8 In the light of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is harassment and the said harassment is for payment of additional dowry only and it attracts the offence punishable under Section 498- A of IPC and accordingly the petitioner is liable for punishment for the said offence. 9 As the alleged offence took place in the year 1999, and it is more than 11 years and the petitioner was in jail for some time, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken with regard to the quantum of sentence. 10 Accordingly, while allowing this revision partly and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the courts below on the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, and confirming the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, however, this court modifies the said sentence and reduces the same from three years to 18 months. The petitioner is directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of sentence. The period of detention, which the petitioner has already undergone, shall be given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. --------------- 09.03.2010 kvsn