The High Court · 2025

The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 1635 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the Judgment of the I Addl. Dist, Judge, Nizamabad in Crl.A.No.13 of 2009, dated 09.05.2011 which was modified the sentence passed by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in C.C.No.896 of 2003, dated 02.02.2009, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. R.Chandra Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor The Corirrt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1142 OF 2O\l ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) aggrieved by the Judgment dated O9.O5.2O|I in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2OO9 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as 'the learned appellate CourtJ by modifying the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated O2.02.2OO9 in C.C.No.896 of 2O03 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial Court).

2. Heard Sri R.Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-acci:sed was solemnized with one Uma Buddai - complainant on 25.04.1993 and at the time of marriage, the parents of Uma gave 2Yz tulas gold and furniture worth Rs.2O,OOO/- and other household articles towards dowry. Four 2 months after the marriage, the petitioner- rr cused started harassing the complainant for want of additi rnal dowry of Rs.50,00O/-. When the complainant was carrving pregnancy of llz rnonth, the accused necked out her. In the year 1995 she was blessed with a male child and after the birrl.L :rf the child, the elder pacified the matter and the complainant jri reci the society of the accused. In the year 1997 the complainae. biessed with a female child, but the accused did not change h s attitude and continued to harass the complainant for add it onal dowry of Rs.50,000/-. On 16.06.2003 when the complain;rnt refused the demand of the accused to bring additional dorv; y, the accused tried to kill her with a knife- Then, she escape,l from there and Iodged complaint against the accused in Crime l{t .77 of 2OO3 for the offences under Section 498-4, of IPC.

4. The learned trial Court vide Judgment da.ed O2.O2.2OO3 passed in C.C.No.896 of 2OO3 found petitioner-:rc,:used guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and s e;rtenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thre.. (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of paymerrt of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. ,Agrlrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred arr appeal. 3

5. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated

09.05.2011, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2013, modifying the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred

6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned trial ,Court and the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment. 7 . l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

8. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Pl and P2 were marked. No oral or documentar5r evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

9. The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record, uide its Judgment, convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra. 4

10. The learned appellate Court upon re-i.r1- preciating the material available on record modified the convictic'n and sentence imposed against petitioner for the offence under Siection 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple impr Lsonment for a period of six months and fine amount of Rs.5 300/- imposed against him is conhrmed 1 1. A perusal of the record shows that this t.), ,urt vide Order dated 18.05.20i 1 passed in CRL.R.C.M.P.N,r t635 of 201i suspended the sentence of imprisonment penclt 3 this Criminal Revision Case and enlarged petitioner on bai[. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments

12. In the case on hand, the learned trial Cour' as well as the Ieamed appellate Court concurrently held th,rr the petitioner herein was guilty for the offences under Sectror 498-A of IPC, which finding, in my considered view, dor:r, not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdictrorr under Section 397 arrd 401 of the Cr.P.C., as there are no grrr Lnds much less valid grounds, or irregularities, or illegalities, to rnterfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts e nd accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismisscd. -.: 5

13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and as ten long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, accordignly, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him

14. Except the above modihcation, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- K. REE RAMA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Sri. R.Chandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies YJR/GH , HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ,; :i- ()r,. ... ,( a 2 t IEP 2t[5 ORDER CRLRC.No.1142 ot 2011 t\ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS. ,.) N U' 0\ *