The High Court · 2025

The State of AP., Rep by its public prosecutor High Court of Ap., Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. Krishnaveni repri:senting Ms. A Gayatri Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor aaaaThe Court made the following: ORDER /1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE,No.1561 OF 2013 ORDER: ThisCrinrinal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment datcd 28.06.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2013 on the file of the' learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C) at Karimnagar (lor short, "the appellate Court") confirming the judgment dated 31.O8.2012 in S.C.No.304 ol 2072 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Siri<:illa, Karimnagar District (for sh ort, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Smt.Krishnaveni, Iearned counsel representing Sri Gayathri Redd-"-, learned counsel lor the revision petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the accttsed got married the de facto complainant. After the marriage, they lived happily for a period of two years and out of their wedlock they were blessed u'ith a child. Therea,fter, the accused started harassing de facto complarnant to bring additional dor.r'ry of Rs.50,000 l- ar,d used to beat her indiscriminate'l-v". After some days, again de facto complainant and accused rvere blessed rvith a male child, at 2 that time, when the brothers of accused came to see their child, the accused suspected the fidelity o[,de facto complainant that she got illicit intimacy w.ith his brothers. While so on 07.O2.2O12 at 12.OO noon, the accused took her inside the house and bolted the doors and took a knife u'ith an intention to kitl her and attacked 'her, due to rvhich she sustained injuries on her stomach, hands, back, fingers and others parts of body. Basing on the said facts, a complaint '"r'as registered in Crime No.17 of 20L2for the offence under Section 498-.4, 3O7 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The case '"vas taken on file as P.R.C.No.22of 2Ol2 bv the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla. On appearance of the accused furnished the copies of the documents under Section 2O7 of Cr.P.C and on consideration as the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar under Section 2O9 of Cr.P.C

5. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar has taken the case on the file as S.C.No-3O4 of 2Ol2 and made over the same to trial Court for disposal according to law. The trial Court vide judgment dated 31.O8.2O12 in J S.C.No.304 o1' 2072 convicted the petitioner lbr the offence punishable under Secrions 326 of Lp.C insteird of 307 of IpC under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pav fine of Rs.500 / , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one monr.h for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.p.C. The period of remand alread-v undergone b1' the petitioner is ordered t. be set off under Section 428 ol Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by the sam,r. the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

6. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the Appeal con lirming the judgment passed b1, rhe trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts belou' ought to have seen that entire case relied on intere sted l'itne sses and failed to see that medical evidence is not corroborated '"v; th ocular evidence. The Courts belo,,r. failed to appreciate the evidence properly. Further, the learned Judge should have se,en that the evidence of suppo rt.ing w,itnesses PWs.4 and 7 did not support the prosecution case, etnd they ,"vere treatecl as hostile and the other reasons give. _ed (-" 4 Judge are unsustainable. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revision

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightl_v passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.l to 11 and marked Exs.Pl to Pl I and MOs. 1 and 2.'

10. A perusal of the record shoris that this Court vide order dated 29.O7.2013, suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. pending Revision and on the same terms and conditions on which he was on bail during trial. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.

11. In the present case on hard, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner r.vas guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C., which Iinding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. I i 5

12. Having regard to the submissions made bv both the rearned counsel, uporr considering the fact t}'rat the petitioner suffered mental agon' a,d hardship during the course .f ritigation before the trial Courr as u-ell as the appellate Court, as tw.elve long years have elapsed lrom the date of filing this Revision and as the alleged off.nce occurred prior to the crimina] Lan. (Amendment) Act, 2013. this Court in inclined to take a lenienl vieq.and modify the senten ce I mposed against the petitioner, by the appellate Court, r.vhile c.nfirming the guilt of the accused lor the offence under Sectron326of I.p.C.

13. Accordinglv, the sentence imposed against the petitioner is reduced from three ]'ears to one year of rigorous imprisonment, while giving set off to the period of imprisonment undergone bt. him nnder Secrion 428 of Cr.p.C. The petitioner is directed to surrender l:efore the trial Court forthwith, to serve out the remaining perio,l of sentence.

14. Excepr the above modification, this criminar Revision case in all other nspects, stands dismissed. Miscellane,rus Petitions, pending if an_y, shajl stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. MANJULA GISTRAR D OFFICER To .1. The lV Additionat Sessions Judge. (FTC) at Kanmnagar 2. The Ps.rr:stan t sessions Juoge, Sinci a Xaiimnagar Oistrict Y "',]"

3. The Superintendent, Centrat Prrson' walangal 4. Two CCs to the prori""i'o"L*"'t"i' riign coG ror the State of Telangana at 5 o;; CC to iri A bavatri Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD CoPies HYderabad [OUT] ADK tA- I , I 1 fHE S14, c J J 0 o 1, 01 A!3 7025 c t oEsp,i HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 , I ORDER CRLRC.No.1561 of 2013 DISMISSING THE CRLRC fl+ \s S l,t