HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1784 of 2010 ORDER: The daughter-in-law of Accused No.2, the petitioner herein, filed a private complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 7, who are her husband, parents-in-law, sisters-in-law and spouses of her sisters-in-law, before the leaned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) (ii) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and other witnesses, the said complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.14 of 2006 against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence under Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 498-A of IPC. The case of the complainant, in brief, as per the complaint filed by her is stated as follows: The complainant is the wife and Accused No.1 is the husband. Their marriage was solemnized at Tirupathi on 18.08.2005 as per the Hindu Rites. On the demand made by the accused, the mother and the brother of the complainant agreed to give Rs.3,11,116/- as dowry to the accused and, as such, gave Rs.2,61,116/- on 26.07.2005 to the accused and promised to pay the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage of the brother of the complainant. Apart from this, a Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing No.AP36 J 1831 was presented to Accused No.1. After the marriage, when both parties reached the house of Accused No.1 at Hyderabad on 21.08.2005, all the accused demanded for payment of the balance dowry amount. Subsequently, when the complainant was brought to Bachannapet, all her gold ornaments, except pusthelathadu, was taken away by the accused. It is stated that when the mother and brothers of the complainant questioned Accused No.1, he admitted that he is impotent. Later, all the accused left the house of the complainant without intimation to the complainant or her family members. On 29.10.2005, a legal notice was got issued by the complainant to Accused Nos.1 and 2 demanding return of dowry amount, to which a reply by way of telegram was given denying the allegations of the notice. Hence, the private complaint was filed. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant herself was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3, and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked, and on behalf of the defence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 alone for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and, accordingly, by judgment dated 07.08.2008, convicted and sentenced Accused Nos.1 and 2 alone to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for the offence under Section 3 of the D.P.Act, and acquitted Accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Assailing the same, Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.72 of 2008 before the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, who, after considering the matter in detail, vide his judgment dated 30.06.2010 while concurring with the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, Accused No.2 preferred this Criminal Revision Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case to acquit the petitioner-Accused No.2, but however requested this Court to take a lenient view against the petitioner by reducing the punishment imposed on him, for the reason that he is aged 60 years and that he surrendered himself before the Court below on 19.10.2010. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is aged about 60 years and that though the Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2008 was dismissed on 30.06.2010, the petitioner/accused No.2 was not taken into custody immediately. However, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner surrendered himself before the trial Court on 19.10.2010 and is in jail for the last four days. Thus, considering all these facts and also the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken against the petitioner-accused No.2 by reducing the punishment imposed on him. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act imposed against the petitioner herein/Accused No.2 viz., Kolisetty Basaveswar Rao by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jangaon in CC.No.14 of 2006 by his judgment dated 07.08.2008, as confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2008, by his judgment dated 30.06.2010, is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification, in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 22.10.2010 v v