The High Court · 2025

Kathmandi Shyam, S/o Rajanna' a.S99 90 years' Occ' SriiliiJvirrrrie' .tammit<unta Mandal' Karimnagar District Auto Driver, R/o ...Petitioner / Appellant / Accused No' 1 AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent / Respondent / Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the ResPondent Sri Eranki Phani Kumar Legal Aid Counsel Sri E Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.503 0F 2020 ORDER: . The present Criminal Revision Case is liled aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2020 in Crimina1 ,{ppeal No.l1 of 2020 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short, .the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 13.O2.2079 in C.C.No.1228 of 2015 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad (for short, "the trial Cour:t").

2. Heard learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused No.1 and Mr. E. Ganesh. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent_ State. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the defacto complainant/wife and the petitioner/husband was performed on 25.O5.2OO5 as per customs prevailed in their community. It is stated that at the time of marriage father of the defacto complainant i \-- 2 EW,,T crln.c-No.5O3 oJ 2O2O - presented Rs-5O,OOO/- cash' gold and customary articles towards dowry. The petitioner and the de-facto complainant were blessed with one daughter' It is stated that the accused harassed the de-facto complainant for want of additional dowry, abused her in frlthy language' usedtobeatherindiscriminatelyandshewentto matrimonial home along with her daughter' Basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant' a case in Cr.No.247 of 2OO9 for the offences punishable under Section 4g8-A,324 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused No'l/ petitioner ald for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused No'2/mother of the petitioner' After completion of investigation charge sheet is liled and the learnedlAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass, Huzurabad took cogntzance of the offences against the accused Nos. 1 and 2'

4. To prove the case of the prosecution PWs' 1 to 9 were examined and Exs'Pl to P5 were marked on behalf of the J EW,J Crl.R-C.No.5O3 ol 2O2O prosecution. None were examined and no documents marked on behalf of accused.

5. Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a hne of Rs.1OO/- in default to suffer simple imprisonmenr for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 498-.4 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Secti on 324 of IpC vdth a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. Further the accused No.2 was found not guilty and was accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 49g-A of IPC ald Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry prohibitjon Act, Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ accused No.1 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No. 1 I of 2O2O and 5.

6. After re-appreciation of ividence available on record, the appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 4 EW,.I crLR-c-No-5O3 oJ 2O2O l3.o3.2o2odismissedtheappea]andconfirmedthe sentence imposed against the petitioner/A1 in C'C'No' 1228 of 2015, dated L3'O2'2Olg' Assailing the same' the petitioner preferred the present Revision'

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner suffered remald of 351 days as against his simple imprisonment of 2 years concurrently for the alleged offences under Section 498-A and 324 of IPC and he has been languishing in jail' He further contended that the injuries are simple in nature and PW8 Doctor in his evidence deposed that there were no bleeding injuries on the body of PWl and no bandage on the head of PW1 and yet surprisingly PW8 issued wound certificate under Ex'P4 without there being any material on record' He further contended that the petitioner never demanded dowry and a false case is lodged against him and his mother with art ulterior motive to harass them' He further contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record ln proPer perspective and concurrently found the petitioner guilty of I t 5 EW,J C,-LR.C.No.5O3 of 2O2O the alleged offence. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contencled that both the Courts upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is unwarralted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Reyision.

9. In the case on hand, both the Courts below have concurrentl5r held that the petitioner/accused No.l was guilty of the offence punishable under Sectio ns 49g-A, 324 of IPC, which frnding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. lO. In view of the facts and circumstances o[ the case and upon considering the fact that the petitioner herein has been languishing in jail and suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as welL as the appellate Court and as four yea:.s have already been elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view arrd redtrce the \.: 6 EW'J ctLR.C.tb.5O3 oJ 2o2o - sentence imposed against the petitioner to that of the period already undergone by him but by enhancing the hne amount to Rs.50,OO0/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and the petitioner is directed to deposit the hne amount to the credit of C.C.No.1228 of 2015 before the trial Court within two months from the date of this order and the victims/legal heirs are permitted to withdraw the said amoltnt to the satisfaction the trial Court'

11. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other crime' Except the above modifrcation in respect of sentence, in all other aspects tJris Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed. ,,TRUE COPY" ,rr1i{'"tSU+HkA i w SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Sesstons Judge' Karimnagar 2. The ll Additional l'Oi"i'r wr"S'ttrate of First Class' 3. The Station House Officer' Jammikunta PS' Karimnagar fluzurabad

4. The Superintendent, central Prison' warra?alpeed Post ) Prosecutor' High courtror the state orrelangana' ' lffir?ft33fio'* 6. One CC b Sri Eranki Phani Kumar' Legal Aid Counsel [OPUCI

7. Two CD Copies YY HIGH COURT DATED:03l01tZlZs ORDER CRLRC.No.503 of 2020 l HE liT4 f A .r $ J o 0 4 JA|'l 2125 P c).\ * o i:.qn,, c l t(,,O .l DISMISSING THE CRLRC \b .toPr+ V\- (nw