Remanded

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC6 Feb 2023CRLRC/584/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana disposed of a criminal revision. It confirmed the conviction under Section 498-A IPC but held the original two-year rigorous imprisonment sentence was disproportionate, commutating it to six months simple imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years commuted to six months simple imprisonment; fine of Rs. 5,000 confirmed.

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[^32se l

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

cRtMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 584 OF 2008

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC aganst the Judgment dated.15.04.20O8 passed in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2OO6 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapel Preferred against the Judgment dated. 16.11.2006 passed in CC.No.6O4 of 20O4 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet

¶8

Between:

¶9

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Amrutha Reddy, R/o. Anajipuram Village, penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...ACCUSED/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of 4.P., Rep By PP.,, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SR! S. SATHYAM REDDY, SC FOR SRIP. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. MUTHYALA MURALIOHAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HOITOI'RABLE DR. JUSTICE D.I{AGARJI'N CRIUINAL REVISION CASE No.584 of 2@A

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed by the revision petitioner - accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.O4.2OO8 in Criminat Appeal No. 186 of 2OO6 on ttre file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet confirming the judgment dated f6.11.2006 in C.C.No.6O4 of 2AO4 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet, wherein the revision petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

2- The facts in brief, as can be seen from the record available before the Court are as under:

¶21

a) Tl:re de-facto complainarrt (PWl) lodged a complaint trefore the Penpahad Police Station allegrng that her marriage was performed with the revision petitioner - accused about 13 years from the date of complaint and at the time of rnarriage the father of the de-Jacto complainant has given Rs.70,O00/- as dowqr. Since three years from the date of

¶22

1-l

¶23

¶24

complaint, revision petitioner _ €rccused has lt.eerL coming to the house in drunken condition, beating her. and thereby harassin6l rer to bring additicnal dowqr o1. Rs.1,00,OOO/_ from her tr€ -ents. The revision petitioner _ acctrr;ed had illegat . contacts rrri h other women and used to come l.r:r the house the midnigt t. The revision petitioner _ aecuse j[ sold away the paddy, catfl: and spent such sale proceeds fo: iris bad vices. Thus, the rr vision petitione,- - accused harass eri the d.e_facto complainan mentally and physically.

¶25

b) Basire6 on the said co,nplaint, a case in -)rime No.61 of 2oo4 was rr gistered for the offence uncler sec:rrior:L 49g-A of the Indiar^,enal Code. After completion ol inv,:stigation, charge sher was frled against the revisiorr petitioner _ accused anc cognizance ot' the sarne .was tal<(:n cn file as .^{C.C.No.6Oz-t f 2OO4on the} file of learned Judioi:d ldag.rstrate of First Clas , Suryapet. A charge under Sec rir:rn 49g_A of the Indian I ena_l Code has been framed agar.nsl. revision petitioner .- accused, for which the revisior: petitioner _ accused de:n =d the sarne and pleaded not guiltr.

¶26

¶27

c) During the course of tnal, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.pl to p3. After completion of prosecution e'vidence, the revision petitioner - accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witriesses against him but the same was denied by the revision petitioner - accused and reported no defence evidence on llis behdf. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner - accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.S,OOOI- aurtd in defarrlt to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six rnonths for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Pena,t Code.

¶28

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner - accused has frled the present criminal revision petition on the following grounds:

¶29

¶30

i) The e rpellate Court ought to have remanrled the matter to the trla Court by grving an opportunit_v t,: the revision petitioner - accused for cross examining pWl.

¶31

ii) The t'iat Court and. appellate Court ouglrt to have acquitted tl e accused since the independent vzil.ness pW4 did not suppcrl ttre case of the prosecution.

¶32

iii) The tr al Court ought to have disbelieved dre r:vidence of PWs 1, 2, 3^.and 5 as ttre evidence is inhererLtiy improbable and suffers rom material inconsistencies, con _rirdictions ald omlsslons.

¶33

iv) The in Jredients of Section 49g-A of tht: Inctian penal Code are nol attracted to the case of the prosecut_ion.

¶34

Hearrl Sri Satyam Reddy, learned co.:rrsel for the revision peti ioner - accused and Sri Muthyal a M.uralidhar, leamed Adrli ional Public prosecutor for responrlt:nt _ State.

¶35

Now thr point for consideration is:

¶36

W rether judgment dated 15.A4.2 )08 in Criminal Appeal No. t86 of

¶37

¶38

2006 on the frle of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda , at Suq/apet confirming the judgment dated 16.11.2006 in C.C.No.6O4 of 2OO4 on ttre Iile of leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapetis liabl,e to be set aside?

¶39

The main grievance of the ievision petitioner - accused in preferring this revision is that the evidence of prosecution produced in the form of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 is inherently improbable and suffers frqm inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby the revision petitioner should . have been acquitted.

¶40

Accoriling to PW1- de-facto complainant, her marriage was performed with the revision petitioner - accused about 13 years ago from the date of giving her evidence and revision petitioner - accused used to come late night and insisted her to cook meet and when she refused to cook and he used to beat her. PWI also stated t.l-at thp revision petitioner used to harass her for want of additional dowry of Rs.1,0O,OOO/-and when she olpressed her inability, he has driven her o1rt of the

¶41

¶42

house. P'/s 2 and 3, who are father a'cl trrother of pWl respectivel , have supported the version of p,l/ I and deposed about tht: i I treatment meted out by pW1.

¶43

Lear: .ed cor:nsel for the revision petitioner has vehemenlly submitted that the evidence of p\A/s, I Lo 3 cannot be consicle ed as they are interested witnes sr_,s and family members ol tl.e victirn and.independent witness plM4 has not supporteil he prosecution case ald thus, basing on the evidence of nterested witnesses, conyiction will not lie. But here is a , ase, wherein the issue is harar;s.ment by the husband rrp dnst wife. The harassment allege,:lly happened -^within four :orners of the house, wherein rev l;ion petitioner and his wifi alone lives. In such circumstarr,::es, it is the wife, who a tne will be able to explain as to what sort of harassmen.t s meted out on her. Even pWs 2 :rrrd il, who are father and t -other of pWl are also not eyewi::resries to the alleged hzri ssment. However, they are liro<iuced to corroborate ,n the alleged harassment mete,l out on the de-facto con: tlainant, as she has allegedly n arrated the incidents of rarassment to her father (pW2) i:rnc. brother

¶44

¶45

(PW3). The other witness is investigating oIfrcer, who after completion of investigation, ltled charge sheet stating that the revision petitioner has committed'the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶46

learned counsel for the rerdsion petitioner has fairly submitted that revision petitioner - accused could not cross examine PWl when she has come to the witness box and deposed in detail about the rrrode of harassment and incidents of harassment by her hhsband towards her. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that he was not given^- an opportunity to cross - examine PWl. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has failed to cross examine PWl, inspite of opportunit5r given to him. The revision petitioner has cross exarnined other witnesses. The'revision petitioner did not even choose to frle an application for recalling PWl for permitting him to cross examine. The revision petitioner has deliberately allowed the evidence of PWl unchallengedwithout being cross examined. When ttrere is no cross examination of PWl, it is deemed that whatever PWI has stated in the chief-examination is not incorrect. At least the

¶47

¶48

reyision p )titioner could have given one suggestion that whatever' ' he has deposed is incorrect. Tt-r,::re1bre, in the absence o cross examiiration of pWl, whrrt a_ll pWl has deposed b; her in the Court and what all slre: mentioned in the compla nt stands un-rebutted thereby ha:assrnent or the allegatior:s n the complaint and her entire evicrt:nce has to be accepted. ( nce the statement of pWl canrr,)t br: disputed, there is nc ase for the rev-ision petitioner.

¶49

Cor:rs: lering the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion thz t ttre trial court has rightly aol:)re,riated the evidence a-r: 1 gave a Iinding that the revisio n pe titioner is found guilty frrr the offence alleged against hrrc, ald tl.e said frnding was :onfirmed by the Appellate Court. H<twever, in respect of s :ntence, it is to be noted Orat t t.r,:: b-ial Court having consi lered the enti_re material on recor jl after Frnding the revisior-r retitioner as guilty of the offence unde:r Section 498-4 of th Indian penal Code sentenced :.r.m to suffer rigorous imp isonment for a period of two yearr; irncl pay fine of Rs.5,0OO/-

¶50

¶51

It is reported by the learned counsel for ttre revision petitioner that fine amount has already been paid. In respect. of quantum of sentenc.e is concerned, this Court is of the opinion tJlat imposing of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years is disproportionate to tJle alleged harassrnent made by thie de-facto complainant. On perusal of the record, it is clear that ttre incidents of alleged harassment are not many. However, in order to find a person guilty of the ollence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is enough as to even one incident of harassment and there is no need that unless there is series of incidents of harassment, only then the person to be found gurlty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶52

Another issue which goes: in favour of the revision petitioner is the issue of non cross examination of PW 1 . The accused persons are normally not familiar with the procedures in the courts. Having not cross examined PWl, the counsel on record for the revision petitioner in the trial ought to have taken steps to see that PWl is cross examined at least formally. On accglt of such non cross examination,

¶53

¶54

the pet.ti ,ner has lost the opportunity io di"r.or" *" evidence ( " pW1. The r.easons are not rec rr.derl as to why the petitio. .er courd not cross examine pwr. (.ronsidering the above fa,:t and circum.si_ances that the allelled offence took place in tl e year 20O4, which is about 19 .y,ears ago, this court is o the opinion that lenient view ca::r be taken in respect of Tlposing sentence against the revis:ion petitioner. Therefore, vhile confirming the conviction rer,:orrled by the trial Court rnd confirmed. by the appellate Cor;1, this Court is of the o, inion that the rerrision petitioner js <iirected to suffer simpl : imprisonment for a period of six :n.nths instead of rigorour; i nprisonment for a period of two yeau.s.

¶55

Acc.rr ingry, the criminar Revision case ir; disposed of while confir:^.rin51 the conviction recorded by lh,: t.ial Court vidb judgnre rt dated 16.11.2006 in C.C.No.6(t,1 of 2OO4 on the file ol' earned Judicial Ma gistrate of trlrst Class at Suryapet anc confirrned by the appellate Court vj,ls -judgment dated 15.O.1. rOO8 in Criminal Appeal No.. lg6 oi i2006 on the file of learnr C II Additional Sessions Judge, I,Ial1;onda at Suryapet, the sentence of rigorous imprisonmer l_ for a period

¶56

¶57

of two years is modified as simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the off€nce under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine amount of Rs.S,OOO/- imposed by the trial Court stands good- The Revision petitioner is directed to surrender himself before the concerned Court - within four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of tlre

¶58

order to undergo the sentence

¶59

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶60

shall stand closed.

¶61

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI FFICER

To,

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet

¶66

The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet

¶67

The Station House Officer, Penpahad Police Station, Penpahad, Nalgonda District

¶68

Two CCs to SRl. Muthyala Muralidhar, Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶69

One CC to Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CD Copies plp

HIGH COURT

DATED: 06/0, 12023

.._.,', li,lt (-'t;.
/ _,.
/ .,, c..()
t:
l--,
i s "^r NiI
:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

CRL.R.C.No. 5l ;4 of 2008

¶78

DISPOSING OT THE CRMINAL REVISION CA.SE

¶79

@P!'at

¶80

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Varala Naga Raju, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Its Pp., and Another

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Vankar Raj Karan Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Akram Mohiuddin, Vs S. Ashok Kumar, and Another

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mohd Ibrahim Khaleel and Another, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.