Partly allowed

Mohd. Afzal, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC21 Nov 2012CRLRC/1551/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in view of the time the petitioner had spent in custody while granting the Criminal Revision.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine confirmed.

Mohd. Afzal, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1551 of 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 27.6.2005 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.No.171 of 1999.

¶4

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶5

The marriage of the complainant was performed with the petitionerA1 on 25.5.1995 and at the time of marriage, Rs.7,100/- and articles worth Rs.50,000/- were given to the petitioner as jahej and after four months of marriage, the petitioner and his mother-A2 and sister-A3 started harassing her and demanding more dowry, and on the same reason, she was ultimately driven out of the house while she was pregnant. On the complaint given by the complainant, a case in Crime No.143/97 was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.471 of 1997.

¶6

In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got Exs.P1 & P2 marked. The petitioner-A1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got Ex.D1 letter marked.

¶7

On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. A2 and A3 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner filed appeal viz., Crl.A.No.171 of 1999 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and the sentence of fine, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A1 preferred the present revision.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner-accused was in prison for a period of more than three months and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded by the Courts below does not warrant any interference. But however, in view of the submission that the petitioneraccused was in prison for a period of more than three months, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken and hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioneraccused is reduced to that of the period already undergone.

¶10

In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower appellate Court against the petitioner-accused for the said offence is reduced to that of the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is confirmed.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

¶12

_____________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶13

21^st November, 2012 Nn

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶15

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1551 of 2005

¶16

21.11.2012

¶17

Mohd. Afzal, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Afzal, v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbalunnisa Begum , Farzana Begum, Vs Syed Abdul Quddus

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Potarla Veeranna, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Yousuf, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sunkara Venkata Bulli Sudhir, Vs M.Srinivasa Rao