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

Petition under Section 15 t CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26-6-2024 passed in Crl. R.C.No. 15't6 of 2010 by restoring the order dated 30-8-2010 passed in Crl. Rc MP No. 2227 of 2010 pending disposal of the Crl. Rc No. 1516 of 2010 in the interest of Justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP. NO:2227 OF 2010) 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 suspend the sentence passed by the l\Ietropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar in Crl.A.No. 53 of 2009, dl. 24-OB-2O10 in SC.No. '147 of 20OB on the file of the V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ranga Reddy District, and grant bail to the petitionr accused by the imposing any terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):Sri.M.Phani Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad The Court made the following: ORDER: L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1516 0F 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Crl.A.No.53 of 2OO9 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad (for short, .the appellate Court), confirming the judgment dated 16.05.200g in S.C.No.147 of 2OO8 passed by the V Additional Assistalt Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ralga Reddy District (for shot, 'the trial Court).

2. Heard Sri M.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l _ State. perused the record

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complaina,t/Smt.K.Karavathi married to the petitioner about 20 years back and that out of their wedlock they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. During the period when the petitioner stayed in Muskat, the petitioner sent the complainant to her parent's house and refused to send money for the maintenance of the family. Thereafter, the accused used to run I EW,J CRLRC 1516 2010 Vaishnavi mess at Sangareddy ald he used to come home once in a week and refused to give money. Further, whenever accused came to Hyderabad, he used to enjoy his own daughter/LW-2 sexually and on questioning the sarne by the complainant, the petitioner used to threaten her that she would be beaten up in case the matter is reported to the Police. Upon the complaint a case in Crime No.343 of 2OO7 of Uppai police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A &, 326 I.p.C was registered.

4. After examination of witnesses and completion of investigation the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376 and 506 (i) of I.P.C.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainalt, PWs.1 to 7 were examined arrd Exs.P-l to P-8 were marked. In defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and after appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial Court uide judgrnent dated 16.05.2009 while acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 376 and 506 (i) of IPC, however, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous EW,J CRLRC t5t6 2010 7\ Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, while giving set off the period of remand undergone during investigation ald trial under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 7 Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.05.2009 in S.C.No.l47 of 2008, the petitioner/accused preferred Cr1.A.N.53 of 2OO9 before the appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and also on re-appreciation of evidence ald the material facts placed before it, uide judgment dated 24.08.2010 in Cr1.A.No.53 of 2OO9 dismissed appeal while confirming the conviction and sentenced imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Case.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed the respective judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended there are no direct witnesses to the occurrence of offence and the case rests on circumstantial erridence. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment. Ly y,J CRLRC I516 20IO Y- --.r -

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor opposed the same, contending that both the Courts below upon appreciation of oral ald documentar5z evidence available on record in right perspective, passed the respective judgments convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.p.C and hence, interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision. lO. A perusal of the record shows that this Court uid_e ord.er dated 30.08.2010 suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner on the condition of executing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. IO,OOO/- by him with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. I 1. In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was guilty for. the offence punishable under Section 354 of I.p.C, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.p.C.

12. Apart from that, a perusa] of the evidence arrd the materiar available on record reveals that there is a concurrent finding of both the cdurts below with rega-rd to the offence committed by 1_- -l ------- / EW.J cRl-RC 1516 2010 the revision petitioner/ accused. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted as far as conviction recorded against the petitioner. But with regard to the sentence, it is to be seen that the offence took place in the year, 2OO7 i.e. about 17 years ago. Therefore, taking into consideration the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner for all these years and also keeping in view the present socia-l status of the petitioner and the de-facto complainart and also their family, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence from two years Rigorous Imprisonment to that of one year simple' imprisonment, while giving set off that period of remald already undergone by the petitioner, under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

13. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stalds dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sec{dKorscen To, '1 . The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L,B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. The V Additional Asst. Sessions Judge(F.T.C.) Ranga Reddy District. 3. One CC to Sri lt/.Phani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] lll One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, - Hyderabad [OUT] aL Two CD Copies M- PSK /gh I HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1516 of 2010 ,) lHE S TA ( C\ ) -!- ! I 1 0 JUt ?025 t\ CtI * {)c * :\ r rff H( DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AS MODIFIED L Ib T