THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2098 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2004 made in Crl.A.No.1 of 2003 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, confirming the judgment of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 12.12.2002 in C.C.No.523 of 2001. The case of the prosecution is as follows: Originally, three accused persons were tried in C.C.No.523 of 2001. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused and he belongs to Kamma community and is a rowdy sheeter. He loved P.W.1 and their marriage was performed in the year 1991 as inter-caste marriage. They lived happily for some time and they were blessed with two children. Thereafter, A1 to A3 started to ill-treat P.w.1 by demanding her to bring the amounts. The parents of P.W.1 did not give any dowry. A1 to A3 necked out P.W.1 and completely neglected her and the children also. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.545 of 2001 was registered against A1 to A3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.523 of 2001. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A2 and A3 not guilty of the offence under section 498- A IPC and acquitted them, but however, found the petitioner-A1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of five days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 2001 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of five days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 498-A IPC imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2098 of 2004 10.3.2011