Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1166 (AP)

Theiparagiri Srinivas v. State Of A. P.

2024-08-21

V SRINIVAS

body2024
ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 14.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused No.1 by the judgment dated 25.08.2009 in C.C.No.248 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapuram, for the offences under section 498(A) and 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 17.06.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1 was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1843 of 2011. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). The marriage of P.W.1 was solemnized with petitioner on 18.06.1997. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 given dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, adapaduchu lanchanam of Rs.10,000/- also presented gold of 10 sovereigns, 15 tulas of silver articles and household articles worth of Rs.20,000/-. The marriage was consummated. Out of wedlock, they blessed with two children. ii). Then the petitioner addicted to vices and sell away the gold and silver articles. He also harassed her with a demand of additional dowry. On that, parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.25,000/- at first instance and then Rs.20,000/- in the second instance. But the petitioner did not change his attitude. iii). On 12.03.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., petitioner beat P.W.1 with a cement brick, resulted, she sustained injury over her right hand and necked her out from the matrimonial house with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. iv). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.10-S.I. of Police, Peddapuram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.56 of 2007 under Section 498(A) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC and investigated into. 4. iv). Basing on Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.10-S.I. of Police, Peddapuram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.56 of 2007 under Section 498(A) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the charge sheet, the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.248 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapuram, after full-fledged trial, found the accused No.1 guilty of the offences under Section 498(A) and 324 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two(2) months, also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of two(2) months, for the respective offences. However, found the accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the offences under Section 498(A) and 324 r/w.34 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.200 of 2009, before the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 14.06.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1. 7. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the testimony of P.W.1 is inconsistent with the medical evidence; that the trial Court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which is hearsay in nature; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. 10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1 coupled with testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4, 7 and Exs.P.4 shows that P.W.1 sustained injury in the hands of petitioner over her forearm and he made harassment against her for additional dowry; that prosecution proved the offences against the petitioner beyond all doubt; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner/accused No.1 for the said offences and thereby, prays to dismiss the present revision. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is the main contention of the petitioner/accused No.1 that the testimony of P.W.1 is inconsistent without any corroboration and cannot be relied upon. 12. It is not in dispute about the relationship between the P.W.1 and petitioner as wife and husband and factum of birth of children out of their wedlock. P.W.1 in her testimony categorically testified about the harassment made by the petitioner with a demand of additional dowry as well caused injury to her with a stone and necked out her from the matrimonial home. The testimony of P.W.1 coupled with testimony of P.W.7 doctor as well Ex.P.4 would certificate established that P.W.1 sustained injury on her right hand. 13. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated to the testimony of P.W.3 brother as well P.Ws.2 and 4 parents of P.W.1. P.W.5, who said to be neighbor of petitioner, conducted panchayat between petitioner and P.W.1, which categorically shows the matrimonial dispute between them. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4. In view of the settled legal position, in a matrimonial dispute, the consistent testimony of victim/P.W.1 itself sufficient to come a conclusion that the petitioner committed the said offences against P.W.1, even in the absence of independent corroboration. 14. The Trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 harassed P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry, beat her with a stone and caused injury to her and thereby committed the said offences. 15. 14. The Trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 harassed P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry, beat her with a stone and caused injury to her and thereby committed the said offences. 15. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 16. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the offences leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1 and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court in appreciating the material on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 17. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the offence had occurred on 12.03.2007, pleaded mercy as there was no past history of criminal antecedents and seeks to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as “P.O. Act”). 18. The P.O. Act aims to provide the benefit of releasing offenders on probation of good conduct instead of imprisoning them. It emphasizes reformation and rehabilitation, steering away from the negative effects of jail life. The court then examined Section 4 of the Act, which empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. 19. Section 4(1) allows the court to direct an offender to enter into a bond, appear for sentencing when called upon, and maintain good behavior during a specified period. This court also perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lakhvir Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 25 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the P.O. Act. This court also perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lakhvir Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 25 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the P.O. Act. It is an Act to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. 20. In the case on hand, considering the fact that the offence said to be happened on 12.03.2007 and by that time the revision petitioner was aged about 30 years; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; that the offence was said to have taken place in the year, 2007 and more than sixteen (16) years have already been lapsed and that now to serve the remaining sentence by the petitioner/accused would amounts to travesty of justice, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act. Furthermore, there is no adverse report against him about his conduct towards P.W.1 otherwise the same would have been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 21. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the petitioner, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct him to be released on his entering into a bond. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, it is a fit case, wherein the benefit of probation can be extended to the petitioner/accused No.1/offender in the light of Section 4 of the P.O. Act and relevant judicial pronouncements. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 be released with an undertaking, by executing a bond, that he shall maintain good behaviour for a period one year. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part The revision petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, by entering into a bond, before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Peddapuram within fifteen (15) days from the date of copy of this order made ready, to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one year, failing which, he can be called upon to serve the sentence imposed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.