ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Mirza Azmath AIi Baig representing Sri A Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.464 of 2O2O ORDERi The present Criminal Revision Case iS filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.09.2O2O in Crl.A.No'101 of 2018 passed by the lll Additional District Judge at Warangal (for short, "the appellate Court), confirming the judgment dated

25.07.2018 in C.C.No.376 of 2011 passed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for PCR Cases, Warangal (for short, 'the trial CourtJ.

2. Heard Sri Azrnatlr5 counsel representing Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ accused Nos. I to 3; ald Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that tine de-facto complainant. filed a complaint at Police Station, Ghanpur [W), on 20.06.20|0 at 11:15 P.M-, stating that her marriage was performed about 3 years ago with petitioner No.2' After one year of the marriage, petitioner No-2 and his parents 2 I started harassing her physically and mentally on the grounds that she had not begotten children. A panchayat was also conducted and the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the coimplainant seeking divorce was allowed. Thereafter, on 20.06.2010 at 6:00 P.M., PW. 1 along with her mother/PW.2, went to Shivr-rnipally. Then all the petitioners entered the house ol complainant, locked the gate, abused and beat them with their hands. On complaint, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested and they were sent to trial Court for judicial remand on 23.06.2010. On 28.06.2010 the accused Nos.6, 7 and 9 to 11 surrendered themselves before the trial Court and they were released on bail. After completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 342,29O,324 r/w 149 of the I.P.C.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 1 1 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked, in defence, none \\,'ere examined, except marking Exs.Dl to D4. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentar;r, available on record, the trial Court uide judgment dated

25.07 .2OlA convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 5 to 1l under I I I ) / ) -l Section 248(21 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 342, 323 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 143 LP.C and, in de fault of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Further, accused Nos. I to 3, 5 to 11 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and were directed to pay a line of Rs.l,OO0/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IpC and, in default of payment of tine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 11 were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 342 IpC and, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused Nos.S to 11 preferred Crl.A.No.1O1 of 2O1g on the file of III Additional District Judge, Warnagat. I I I 4

5. After re-appreciating oral and documentaqr evidence available on record, the appellate Court, vide judgment dated

25.O9.2O2O in Crl.Appeal No. 101 ,qf tO!$ p3{1y allowed the appeal preferred by accused Nos, t tp 3, while alJowing the appeal as against accused Nos.S to I 1. Assailing the said judgment dated 25.09.2O2O in Crl.A.No.101 of 2018 passed by the appellate Court, the petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 have filed the present Cr1.R.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective, accordingly found the petitioners guilty of the alleged offence. He, therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that both the Courts below, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on .record rightly passed their respective judgments ald hence interference of this Court with the well considered judgments of boti the Courts below is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision. 5 a A perusal of the record discloses that this Court uid.e order dated 06.lO.2O2O suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners and ordered to release them on bail on their executing separate personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 1O,OO0 l- each with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the triai Court.

9. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the lower court erred in convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sectio ns 342 and 323 of I.P.C. in the absence of any evidence satisfying the ingredients of the said sections. However, keeping in view the ingredients of Sections 342 and 323 of I.p.C, which have not been detailed herein, and also considering the submissions made by both learned counsels, as well as the fact that the petitioners underwent lot of menta,l agony by appearing in the trial Court and the appellate Court, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed on the petitioners to the period of imprisonment a_lready undergone by them

10. In view of the above, this criminal revision case is dismissed, while confirming the conviction; however, the t I 6 sentence imposed by the trail Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3.

11. The petitioners are further directed to deposit the fine amount imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioners shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 323 of LP.C. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEC TION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional District Judge at Warangal i. ih" Sp""iuf Judicial First Cla-ss Magistrate for PCR Cases' Warangal 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal - +. r*o ci. to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies ADK,&am V I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 ORDER GRLRC.No.464 ot 2020 C'F Te / a. \ I (. J', .$' ,.1 o d- -J \$ rla\ ^, ra , (j ,, ---::-=:?' DISMISSING THE CRLRC 0 ^6 I I I