Partly allowed

Panga Lingmiah v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC20 Jan 2011CRLRC/574/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision Case challenging Sessions Court appeals in a Section 498-A IPC matter, this Court reduced the imprisonment sentences of the accused to ten days, the period already served, while upholding the conviction and fine.

What did the court decide?

The sentences of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone (10 days); fine confirmed.

Panga Lingmiah Vs State of a.P., rep by its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.574 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The petitioners herein were tried by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, East and North, Ranga Reddy District, in C.C.No.905 of 1998 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D.W-1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each.

¶5

The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, N.T.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, who by his judgment, dated 17.03.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal in so far as it relates to A-1, confirming the sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, and partly allowed the appeal insofar as it relates to A-2 and A-3, confirming their conviction for the said offence, but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months, while confirming the fine imposed on each of them by the trial Court. Challenging

¶6

the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that P.W-2 was given in marriage to A-1, who is son of A-2 and A-3, and at the time of marriage cash of Rs.10,000/-, two tulas of gold besides house hold articles were given as dowry to the accused and that one month after the marriage, the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- for purchase of scooter and necked out P.W-2 from the marital home. After the holding of panchayat, P.W-2 was again sent to the house of the accused, but the accused subjecting her to physical and mental harassment, sent her away to her parents house on 10.06.1998, and in this connection, P.W-1 gave a complaint to the Police, which was registered and investigated into and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been in jail for a period of about 10 days i.e., from 17.03.2004 to 26.03.2004.

¶9

In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 17.03.2004 and immediately, the petitioners-accused were taken into custody. It is only after admission of this Criminal Revision Case by this Court on 26.03.2004 and by virtue of the bail granted by this Court, the petitioners-accused were released from the jail. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners were in jail for a period of about 10 days. Further, it is to be noted that A-2 and A-3 are aged about 52 and 64 years, respectively. Hence, as the petitioners have already

¶10

undergone a sentence of about 10 days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the Courts below can be reduced to that of the period already undergone by them.

¶11

Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed on A-1 and rigorous imprisonment of six months imposed on A-2 and A-3 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, N.T.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2003 by the judgment, dated 17.03.2004, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by them, while maintaining the sentence of fine.

¶12

Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶13

___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶14

20^th January 2011 dr

Panga Lingmiah v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panga Lingmiah v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikkam Bala Bhaskara rao Vs Sri Ahmed Nazeem I.A.S

Manduru China Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bada Sakru, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pralshar Bio-Products Pvt.Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Vs Gujarat Agro Tech.Pvt. Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director

M.Vasantha Vs Manupadi Yadagiri

S.Subramanyam, (A1) Vs Sada Venkata Rama Thulasamm, (LW.1)