Marri Shanker, Nalgonda District v. State Of A.P.,Rep By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd
l t BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 17.02.20'1 1, in Crl.RC.M.P.No. 538 of 2011 in Crl.R.C No.350 of2O11.
[ 32es ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 350 OF 2011 Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr. P.C. against the Judgment dated 04-02-2011 made in Crl. Appeal No. 28 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Nalgonda, Preferred against the Order passed in C.C.No. 299 of 2007 dated 08-02-2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) Nalgonda.
Between:
Marri Shanker, S/o. Maraiah, Occ: Auto Driver, Ri/o. Kesharajupally Village, Thipparthy Mandal, Nalgonda District.
..APPELLANT/PETITIONER I:
I AND State of A.P., REP By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. i i ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. K. RAJITHA Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Vizarath Ali Assistant P.P The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.35O oF 2011 ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 04.02.2011 in Crl.A.No.2g of 2Ol0 on the file of the court of learned III Additional District & sessions Judge (FTC), at Nalgonda (for short, "the appellate Court") in confirming the judgment dated 08.O2.2OlO in C.C.No.299 of 2OO7 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First class Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise), Nalgonda (for short, ,.the trial Court,,). 2.
Heard Ms. K. Rajitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent state. Perused the record.
3.
The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner with one Shailaja was solemnized on 13.03.2007. The parents of Shailaja gave an amount of Rs. l,1O,0OO/_ and other household articles to petitioner towards dowry. They were bressed with one male child during their wedlock. Later, the petitioner started harassing his wife mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. The petitioner was also an alcoholic. On 13.03:2007, the petitioner beat his u,ife with Ualligante, i.e, a
steel household articre due to which, the victim suffered bleeding injuries to her right eye, right shoulder etc. Basing on the complaint lodged by pW1, de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of police, Thipparthy police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections.498-4. and 326 of I.p.c. in crime No.35 of 2oo7 and took up investigation.
4.
Initially, the case was taken on file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda as C.C.No.B3O of 2OOZ and was transferred to the trial Court and re_numbered as C.C.No.299 of 2OOZ. The trial Court, vide judgment dated Oa.O2.2OlO, in C.C.No.299 of 2OOT, sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.5O0/- for the offence under Section 49g_A of I.p.C. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/_ for the offence under Section 326 of I.p.C. In default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The remand period of the accused, if any, is ordered to be set off. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
\
5.
The appellate Court vide judgment dated O4.O2.2Oll in Crl.A.No.2B of 2010 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court erroneously found the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences. He further submitted that the injuries of PWl did not tally with medical certificate i.e', Ex P3 and the evidence of PWs.l to 3 were not corroborating with each other. Therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned judgrnent. 7.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate court after careful consideration of the evidence available on record rightly passed the impugned judgment and therefore, sought to dismiss the Revision.
8.
On behalf of the respondent, the trial Court exarnined PWs. I to 6 and marked Exs.Pl to P4. On behalf of the petitioner, none were examined and no documents were marked. MOl was marked as material object. The trial Court found that the oral evidence of PW1 was in corroboration with trx P1 complaint. PW2 is the circumstantial witness to the incident. In cross-examination PW3 stated that PW1 was undergoing I
treatment for injuries sustained by her by the acts of petitioner PWS was the Doctor who treated PWl and he issued Ex P3 wound certificate. He deposed that he examined PWl and found (i) Contusion to right eye, (ii) incised wound measuring 3" x Yz" x Y"" on the back on right side and (iii) tenderness of the abdomen. He further deposed that injuries (i) and (ii) were simple in nature arld they were caused by blunt object. Injury (iii) was grievous in nature and caused by sharp object. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 5 coupled with Ex P1 and M.O.l, it was proved that petitioner is the husband of PW 1 and their marriage was performed about three years ago. Accused brought PW1 to his house after three months of her giving birth to son and subjected her to physical cruelty and voluntarily caused grievous hurt using MO1.
The petitioner neither entered into the witness box nor led any reliable evidence to demonstrate that he did not subject the victim to physical cruelty. Therefore, the trial Court found the evidence of PWs.l to 5 consistent, reliable and trustworthy and rightly passed the judgment dated 08.O2.2010 in C.C.No.299 of 2OO7.
9.
On an appeal being preferred, the appellate Court after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and
upon appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 also observed that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and thereby rightly dismissed the Appeal by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
10. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 17.O2.2O11 suspended the operation of sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner and enlarged the petitioner on bail on executing a bond for an amount of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The counter foil No.O12213 dated 06 .O2.2O|O annexed to the Revision shows that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,OO0/- to the credit of the trial Court and thus paid the fine amount imposed vide judgment dated 08.O2.2010 in C.C.No.299 of 2OO7.
11. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections.498-A and 326 of I.P.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments of the Courts below and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. However, as the petitioner, suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appeilate Court ald as twelve long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Revision, this Court in inclined to take a lenient vievv and modify the sentence imposed by the appellate Court, while confirming the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences.
14. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months instead of two
(2) years rigorous imprisonment for both the offences i.e., under Section 498-4 and 326 of I.P.C. while giving set off to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court to serve out the remaining period of sentence forthwith. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled
15. Except the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case in all other aspects, stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ,i Sd/. M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \4.'
i fl SECTION OFFICER t To,
1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Nalgonda,
2. fhe Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) Nalgonda.
3. One CC to Ms. K. RAJITHA, Advocate IOPUCI
4. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana.
5. Two CD Copies *.-v *I I II DL II I ., t i j I { { IiI I i t ii I i .
it ,t :
i
rI i t t II t Iit;
HIGH COURT EW,J , I |.
DATED:04/10/2023 I I ;
f II ,t t I 66 STAT€ 1{!
{ I 2 3 stg 2't?:
q f,co t'
*
ORDER
CRLRC.No.350 of 2011 DISMISSING THE Crl. R.C.
t t, ra t :t {fl