In a revision against upheld convictions for cruelty and adultery, the High Court confirmed guilt under Section 498A IPC but reduced the sentence to the period already served, citing the case's age and prior incarceration.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction maintained; fine confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Revision Case No.1178 of 2006
O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-A.1 challenging the order, dated 27.06.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Crl.A.No.63 of 2005.
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
About ten years prior to the date of complaint, the marriage of PW.1 and the petitioner/A.1 took place and they lead happy marital life for ten years. Thereafter the petitioner herein started harassing PW.1 by beating her with hands and he was having illegal intimacy with one Chakali Rajeshwari/A.4 and on knowing the same, PW.1 went to Jaipur and caught hold them and produced before PW.7 village sarpanch and informed about their acts. PW.7 pacified the matter and sent them to Neelwai to live amicably. After two days A.2 and A.3 attempted to commit murder of PW.1 and they demanded Rs.34,000/- and after receiving the same the petitioner herein went to A.4 and stayed with her. On that PW.1 lodged report with police. Basing on the same FIR was issued in Crime No.14 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 498A and 497 I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file for the offences under Sections 498A and 497 I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Chinnur, took the case on file, framed charges under Sections 498A and 497 I.P.C. against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.2 to A.4 for the offences under Sections 498A I.P.C. and while acquitting the petitioner-A1 for the offence under Section 497 I.P.C., found him guilty for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer (15) days simple imprisonment. Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, the petitioner-A.1 filed appeal viz., Crl.A.No.63 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court against the petitioner-A.1 for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-A.1 filed this revision.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 while raising several contentions, submitted that the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for a considerable period and prayed to take a lenient view.
Perusal of the record shows that the trial Court having disbelieved the prosecution case that the petitioner/A.1 was having illegal intimacy with one Rajeshwari, acquitted him for the offence under Section 497 I.P.C., but found him guilty for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. basing on the proved allegation that he used to harass PW.1 demanding dowry and the said finding was confirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below with regard to the conviction recorded against the petitioner-A.1 for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. But however, since the case pertains to the year 2002 and in view of the submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioner-A.1 was in prison for a substantial
period, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
Accordingly, the conviction rendered by both the Courts below, for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner-A.1 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-A.1 is hereby reduced to the period, which the petitioner-A.1 has already undergone. The sentence of fine and the default condition stipulated there under by the Courts below are confirmed.
With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this revision, shall stand closed.
__________________ RAJA ELANGO, J
03.07.2013 gra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC should be maintained given the length of imprisonment served.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed under Section 498A IPC requires reduction or confirmation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.1
PW.1
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
