Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. VENKATESWARLU SAMISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI. E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER r) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE No.22O OF 2015 The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/ accused under Sections 397 and 4O1 of Cr'P'C' aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.2015 in Criminal Appeal No'50 of 2Ol4 on the ltle of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem' Khammam District, wherein and where under the judgment dated 27.C,3.2014 in CC No.96 of 2O10 on the fiie of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem' Khammam District is modihed.

2. Heard Sri Venkateshwarlu Samisett5r, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor. Though notice is ordered, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

3. CC No.96 of 2O1O on the hld of the trial Court is a case registered against the accused/ petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act alleging that having not satisfied with the dowry and other valuable things, the petitioner physically and mentally harassed his wife for bringing additional dowry and even after giving birth to a female child he continued such harassment, pressurised her .L Page 2 of6 to give divorce and finally he necked out his wife. Since the mediation held through the elders yielded no fruitful result, the de-facto complainant got registered the present case.

4. During trial, the de-facto complainant got herself examined as PWl and also examined PWs.2 to 7 and exhibited documents under Exs.Pl to P5. PW2 is father of PWl. PWs.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution case. PWS held panchayat to pacify the issue. PW6 advised the petitioner to look after PW I well- PW7 is the investigating oflicer. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court.

5. The trial Court, upon perusing the material placed before it, holding that the prosecution proved the coercion on the part of the petitioner towards PWl to meet his unlawful demand of dowry and also the harassment meted out by him against Pwf / his wife found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of DP Act while acquitting him for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act. The trial Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. IOO/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act and also sentenced him to Page 3 of6 suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IpC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10O/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months directing the sentences to run concu;ently.

6. Aggrieved by the said hndings, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.5O of 2Ol4 on the lile of the appellate Court mainly contending that the trial Court erroneously found the petitioner/accused guilty. The appellate Court, while acquitting the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act, reduced the quantum of sentence imposed against him for the olfence punishable under Section 498-A IPC from the period of two years simple imprisonment to one year while confirming the hne amount of Rs. 1O0/-.

7. Aggrieved by the lindings of the appellate Court, cited supra, the petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contendrng that basing on the inconsistent evidence of prosecuLion witnesses, both the Courts have found the petitioner guilty and they failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was pressurised to leave his parents and to stay with the complainant. Both the Courts have failed to consider the fact that due t,o family differences PW1 and the petitioner lived separately and the same cannot be termed as harassment. There is no direct witness to \ ^ \ Page 4 of6 prove the alleged harassment meted out by the petitioner towards PWl

8. On the other hand, learnpd assistant public prosecutor opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that hndings of both the trial Court and appellate Court are well considered judgments and they cannot be interfered with since the grounds urged herein have no force warranting interference of this Court. Though notice was issued, none appeared for the respondent No.2.

9. Having heard the rival contentions advanced on either side and the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC by adducing corroborative, clinching and convincing. evidence and hence, the said hndings .cannot be interfered with. It is also a fact that the petitioner/accused having failed to rebut the prosecution evidence before the trial Court and appellate Court approached this Court with the grounds urged herein. However, the said grounds have no water to give credence since this Court hnds no perversity or irregularity in the hndings of the trial Court and appellate Court. Page 5 of6 Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings.

10. However, keeping in view the long pendency of the I t present litigation and the mental agony and trauma that migh[ have suffered by the petitioner for all these years by- roaming around the Courts and suffering physical incarceration, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in his favour. Accordingly, the period of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 49g-A of IPC sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year is reduced to that of the period which he had already undergone. However, the hne amount imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is increased to Rs.55,OO0/- directing the petitioner to deposit the same to the credit of CC No.96 of 2O10 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicia-l Magistrate of First Class, Kothagridem, Khammam District within two montis from today. In default of payment of hne amount, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Except the above modihcation, the present criminal revision case is dismissed in all other aspects. 1 1. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed ,l Page 6 of6 \

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, District. l.TheVAdditionalsessionsJudge,Kothagudem,KhammamDistrict. 2. The lll Additional L,aiciai fyf'git'ate of F]rst Class' Kothagudem' Khammam s. ih";'Irp.rintendent, Sub-Jail, Khammam' Khammam District' 4. The Station House Oniceiiii'Town Police Station Kothagudem' Khammam u. ?;1t%" to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad o. 5#bc to sRl. vENKATESWARLU sANlsETw Advocate [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies. (OUT) PM/psl V HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.220 ot 2015 ( (o o *s s. \ t:'',,\t ./ C) .l DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE W