This criminal revision petition challenged the confirmation of conviction under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction for Section 498-A but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner, confirming the fine only.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; 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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1183 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner-A1 against the judgment, dated 07.07.2006 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Eluru, in Crl.A.No.128 of 2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
A2-Kosuri Surya Rao and A3-Kosuri Satyavathi alias Sattemma are the parents of A1. A4 to A6 are the supporters of A1 to A3. A7 is the bigamous wife of A1. The marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A1 about five years prior to the complaint and at that time, her parents and brother gave an amount of Rs.60,000/- as pasupukumkuma and an amount of Rs.30,000/- as dowry. P.W.1 and A1 were blessed with a son. Subsequently, at the instigation of A2 to A6, A1 was demanding P.W.1 to get additional amount from her parents and brother. When she refused for the same, A1 to A4 used to beat her and they also caused injuries with heated iron implements on her body. In the year 1998, A1 to A3 necked out P.W.1 from the house and on the intervention of elders, P.W.1 was brought to the house of the accused. On 5.2.1999 at the instigation of A2 to A6, A1 poured kerosene on P.W.1 and tried to set fire, but she escaped from it and went to her parents’ house. While P.W.1 was staying at the house of her parents at Pamulaparru, A1 married A7 at Dwaraka Tirumala at Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple on 6.2.1999 and later, A1 & A7 went to Singarajupalem and lived there. When P.W.1 along with elders approached A1, he declared that he married A7 at Dwaraka Tirumala and he refused to talk with P.W.1. Later, A1 and A7 shifted their abode to Khammam District. Then, P.W.1 lodged a complaint basing on which a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. The
learned Magistrate took the same on file as C.C.No.256 of 1999. After following due procedure, the learned Magistrate framed charges for the offence under Section 498-A against A1 to A3; under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC against A4 to A6; charge under Section 494 IPC against A1 and a charge under Section 494 r/w 34 IPC against A2 to A7, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D1 was marked on their behalf.
4. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A1 to A3 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; A4 to A6 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC; A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and A2 to A7 guilty for the offence under Section 494 r/w 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as follows:
1) A1 to A3 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC;
2) A4 to A6 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC;
3) A1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC;
4) A2 to A7 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 494 r/w 34 IPC;
5) All the substantive sentences passed against the above respective accused shall run concurrently.
Challenging the judgment of the trial Court, the accused filed four
appeals viz., A1 to A3 filed Crl.A.No.128 of 2003; A4 filed Crl.A.No.133 of 2003; A5 & A6 filed Crl.A.No.129 of 2003; and A7 filed Crl. A. No.130 of 2003 before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Eluru. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge clubbed the appeals filed by the accused and re-appreciated the evidence on record and passed the judgment impugned herein, convicting the petitioner-A1 and acquitting the other accused as follows:
5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the petitionerA1 filed this revision.
6. Heard and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-A1 submitted that it is not a fit case for interference, but in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused No.1 was in prison for a considerable period, a lenient view may be taken.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner-A1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-A1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. But however, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below.
9. In the result, the conviction recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner-A1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is confirmed. But however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below for the said offence is reduced to the period, which the petitioner-A1 has already undergone, while confirming the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this revision, stand closed.
_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J
Dated: 11th July, 2013 Nn
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1183 of 2006
11.07.2013
Nn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC should be maintained considering the facts.
Whether the sentence under Section 498-A IPC requires reduction given the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kosuri Satyaiah
The State
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
