Partly allowed

Patnala Ramana, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2023CRLRC/1534/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision concerning Section 498-A IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment term to the period already served by the appellant, citing dependencies and prior stay, while confirming the fine and acquittal of untenable aspects.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine affirmed; conviction upheld.

Patnala Ramana, Vs the State of Ap… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT^

¶2

§5^
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER fSA
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE X li
o X
&
PRESENT -ft

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1534 OF 2012

¶6

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P C against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.41 of 2011, dt. 29-08-2012 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge Vizianagaram preferred against the order made in C.C. No.201/2010 Dated.08/04/2011 on the file of the Court of the J.F.C.M., (Spl.Mobile) Vizianagaram.

¶7

Between:

¶8

sSte 99 Years, Occ: Barbar, R/o. Sahpeta of Rellivalasa Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND

¶10

"'9^ Court^of

¶11

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶12

LA. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP. NO: 2374 DF ?ni9|

¶13

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on ball by suspending the judgment and sentence of the order of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagarm, passed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2011, dt. 29-8-2012 in confirming the Judgment of the J.F.C.M., (Spl. Mobile), Vizianagaram, passed in CC.No.201 of 2010, dt. 08-04-2011, pending disposal of the CrI.R.C.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶16

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1534 of 2012

¶17

ORDER;

¶18

This Revision is arising out of judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2011 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for ' die offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in the judgment dated 08.04.2011 in C.C.No.201 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

¶19

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:^the marriage PW-1 with A1 was performed on 01.12.1993. Thereafter, A1 looked after PW-1 properly for a period^of five years. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed^withtwo children. Thereafter, the petitioner/A1 started harassing the PW-1 both physically and mentally. After the marriage, parents of PW-1 presented 8 tolas of gold to

¶20

¶21

petitioner/accused towards dowry and then petitioner/accused started harassing her to bring additional dowry. When the petitioner/Al harassed PW-1, she raised a dispute before elders viz., Sankara Rao^and Bhaskara Rao of Rellivalasa, who advised petitioner/accused to put up separate residence from joint family, accordingly, petitioner/accused and PW-1 started living in a separate house which belongs to mother of appellant which was given to mother of petitioner/accused in B.C.Colony, even then the petitioner/accused did not change his attitude and started harassing PW-1 for additional dowry. On that, she presented a report before the Pusapatirega Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 115 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶22

The prosecution examined PW. 1 to PW.6 and marked Ex.PI to Ex.P3. On behalf of the accused DW-1 was examined and Ex.Dl.

¶23

¶24

The trial Court, A-1 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and he is convicted for the offence under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

¶25

Against the said impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the trial Court’s judgment.

¶26

Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/A. 1.

¶27

Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

¶28

The point that arises for consideration in this revision

¶29

is:

¶30

¶31

“Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court i.e., Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram?”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court as well as Sessions Court erred in law in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, even though the ingredients to constitute the said offence have not been proved by the prosecution. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-2 categorically admitted that the petitioner looked after PW-1 properly and they lived happily up to 2008 from the year 1993, which^falsifies the prosecution case that there is dowry harassment^and the Courts below ought to have considered the fact that the prosecution has not produced any legal evidence to prove the charge under Section 498-A IPC and that the trial Court solely relying upon on the interested testimony of PW-2 who said to be brother of PW-1 who is an interesting witness and lastly submitted that if at all, the prosecution proved the case, a lenient view may be taken as both the children who were born to the petitioner are residing^with the petitioner/accused and his daughter by name Patnala

¶33

¶34

Suneetha studying Engineer at Baba Institute of Technology and Sciences, Visakhapatnam and his son by name Patnala Lateesh, Studying Polytechnic at M.B.T.S. Government Polytechnic College, Guntur and both the children were educating by the petitioner/accused and if the sentence confirmed entire family will be on the^roads and they sustained irreparable loss and the incident^said to have taken place in the year 2009.

¶35

On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that Ex.PI clearly mentioned about^the harassment and there is no material to doubt the prosecution case and the entire case of prosecution established that there are series of events took place^after the marriage of de facto complainant and A-1. He further submits that in or about 2003, when the accused harassed PW-1, she gave a complaint to the police and after conducted counseling and advised both of them they^lived together and to put up separate residence and even^after the birth of children, there is no change in the attitude^of A-1 and he continued the harassment towards PW-1 and

¶36

V „

¶37

¶38

the prosecution has proved the case and both the Courts marshaled the facts and came to conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the'accused.

¶39

After hearing both sides, this Court closely perused the judgments of trial Court and the Sessions Court. The undisputed fact is PW-1 married the A-1 in the year 1993, which is a love marriage and their marriage registered^at Sub Registrar Office, Vizianagaram. It is a fact found^from the testimony of PW-1 that both A-1 and PW-1 living together till 2008 and they were blessed with two children by names Patnala Suneetha (daughter) and Patnala Lateesh (son).

¶40

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the study certificates of Suneetha and Lateesh and they were under the care of the petitioner/ accused.

¶41

The evidence of PW-1 is that, in view of the several mediations accused took a house and put up a separate residence in front of the house of parent’s of PW-1. It is

¶42

¶43

specific contention of prosecution that even after^thebirth of children there is no change in the attitude of A-1^andhe continued the harassment towards PW-1. May be true, PW-3, in fact, is a hostile witness, but it is elicited^thatone Eswara Rao supported the version of PW-1 and the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 speaks there was a harassment said to have taken place.

¶44

Both trial Court as well as Sessions Court marshal the facts and came to conclusion that accused committed the offence, it is elicited that the petitioner/accused subjected to PW-1 by way of harassment, which is offensively unjust to PW-1.

¶45

This Court clearly verified the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that the accused used to harass the PW-1 both physically and mentally. When there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the harassment. Both trial^Court and Sessions Court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period^ofone (01) year and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees

¶46

¶47

One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of^one (01) month.

¶48

After evaluating the entire evidence, this Court could not find any irregularity or illegality committed by trial Court as well as Sessions Court, to come to such a finding. However, admittedly, the marriage of PW-1 was perform with petitioner/A-1 in the year 1993 at Sub- Registrar Office, Vizianagaram, in the presence of PW-5- Pativada Ramu and Yella Rao, they lived together till 2008, they lived together for about 15 years. Thereafter, the petitioner herein is attending the trial Court as well as Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also maintains the conviction of the petitioner herein, but not reducing any sentence. However, the circumstances, leading to show that the daughter and son are depending upon the petitioner^herein and his daughter by name Pamala Suneetha studying Engineer at Baba Institute of Technology and Sciences (BITS) at Visakhapatnam and his son by name Patnala Lateesh Studying Polytechnic at M.B.T.S. Government Polytechnic College, Guntur. Since, the. learned counsel for

¶49

¶50

the appellant made an alternative suggestion and requested to take a lenient view, in view of the fact^that both children are depending on him, who is taking care^of them and for their studies.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of HonTDie the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh^V

¶52

State of Punjab^, wherein it was held that:

¶53

“At the end of the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant made an alternative submission and requested to take a lenient view in view of the fact that after the death of Jaswinder Kaur (first wife), the appellant got married second time and from his second wife he has three children out of which one son is handicapped and his mother is also paralysed. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, we affirm the conviction under Section 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC and reduce the sentence awarded under Section 304-B IPC to seven years along with the sentence of two years imposed under Section 498-A IPC and a ifne of Rs.2,000/- as imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with direction that both sentences shall run concurrently”.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon^a

¶55

judgment in Bavo @Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v State

of Gujarat^.

1 (2013) 12 see 333

2 (2012) 2 see 684

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that^the petitioner/accused had undergone sentence of four (04) days. Thereafter suspension of sentence was granted by this Court. On such suspension of sentence, the petitioner was enlarged on bail.

¶61

Having regard to the above discussion and in view of J. ths -^bove pronouncements of the Hon^ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of already undergone by him, instead of one (01) year, for the^offence under Section 498-A of IPC. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in-part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of already undergone by him, instead of one (01) year imprisonment, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 29.08.2012 in Crl.A.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, shall stands confirmed.

¶62

¶63

]

¶64

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

Sd/-V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶68