High Court confirmed conviction in 498-A IPC case based on joint finding of guilt. Court reduced sentence to time already undergone and ordered compensation payment due to delay in filing revision.
Sentence reduced to time undergone; compensation of Rs.55,000 ordered; prior to appeal dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Criminal Revision Case No.2284 of 2010
Criminal revision filed under Sections 397 &. 407 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in Cr1.A.No.184 of 2OO9 on the file of the III Additional District & Session Judge (IFTC) at Nalgonda preferred against the order dated 10.09.2009 passed in C.C.No.421 of 2005 on the file of the ]udicial First Class Magistrate at Deverakonda.
Between:
..Petitioners.
AND
The State (SHO, SubJnspector of Police, Chinthappally P.S.,) rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.
... Respondent/ Complainant.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP. NO: 3433 OF 2010)
Petition under Section 397 (7) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crl.A.No. lM ot 2nl09 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (IFTC) Nalgonda, dt.03-12-2010, that was filed against the Judgment in CC.No. 421 of 2005 on the file of the I.F.C.M., Deverakonda, dt.10-09-2009 pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Venkanna
Counsel for the Respondenh Sri E. Gaesh, Asst.Public Prosecutor.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENU@PAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE N0.2284 0F 2010
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.|2.2OLO passed in Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2OO9 on the lile of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (IFTC) at Nalgonda (for short, "the appellate Court") in conhrming the judgment dated 1O.O9.2OO9 in C.C.No.421 of 2OO5 on the hle of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda (for short, "the trial Court"), the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
,t
I
2
of gold, 8O tulas of silver ornaments, cash of Rs.2,OO,OOO/and other household articles towards dowry to the petitioner No.1/accused No.1. After the marriage, the complainant and petitioner No. 1/accused No.1 had led a happy marital life for a period of eight months and the complainant returned to her parents house at Kurumed for delivery and gave birth to a baby namely Mounika. Thereafter, she went to her in-law's house and then petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 started harassing her mentally and physically by demanding Rs.30,O00/- from her parents, to meet his expenditure spent for bad habits like drinking and his elder brother i.e., petitioner No.2/accused No.2, mother i.e., petitioner No.3/accused No.3 and sister, used to encourage petitioner No.l/accused No. 1 to beat her mercilessly. Thereafter, she was necked out from her in-Iaw's house without considering that she was pregnant.
3
lodged a complaint before the Court. Basing on the said complaint, ASI of Police of Chinthapally police Station registered a case in Cr.No.9l of 2OO4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.p.C and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against ttre petitioners/accused and the same was numbered as C.C.No.42L of 2OOS on the f,rle of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Deverakonda.
4
5
1 1. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it may be mentioned that the marriage took place in the year
2OOO, almost twenty four years have been elapsed and during this period, the revision petitioners/accused might have repented for the acts committed by them. In these crrcumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court
6
deems it proper to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court.
7
by the petitioners to the credit of C.C.No.42 1 of 2005 on the file of trial Court as compensation within a period of six (06) months from the date of this order, out of which the de-facto complainant IS permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the remaining amount of Rs.5,O00/shall remain with the State. In default, the Revision Petitioner shall suffer three (O3) months simple imprisonment.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this crimina,l revision case shall also stand
dismissed.
/TTRUECOPY//
sd/- l. NAGA SHMI DE REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER
To,
,w
HIGHCOURT
DATED.IZ/12/2024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.2284of 2010
o B i i\E s+a
k
oJ r
2 7 rEB ?|Jl1S
]
*
t
.Sr'l4TCHf. I /'
Dismissing the Crl.R.C.
la{
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed in a 498-A IPC case.
Whether the sentence should be modified after a lapse of many years following the conviction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Megavath Raju
Megavath Chandu
The State
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
