BOMMA ILAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 123/1996, dated 10.8.2000, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, whereunder while the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gajwel in C.C. No. 4/1993, dated 5.12.1996, against A2 and A3 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was set aside, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was confirmed and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 325 I.P.C., was modified and A1 was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 325 I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present revision case are that Bomma Kanakamma (P.W.1) was married to A1 in the month of February 1992, that at the time of the marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave one cycle, one wrist watch and some household articles to A1, that two months after the marriage A1 started harassing his wife with a view to get rid of her and to marry another girl, that on coming to know about the same, in the month of April 1992, the parents of P.W.1 took her to Guntupally and stayed there for about 20 days and later on the advice of elders P.W. 1 returned to the house of her husband, that on 13.8.1992, A1 forced his wife to have sexual intercourse with him, relieved her clothes, inserted his fingers and a stick in her vagina, and caused severe pains and bleeding and she became unconscious, that for about four days thereafter she was not allowed to come out of the house, that the parents of P.W.1 and other relatives held a Panchayat, that then she was shifted to a private hospital at Gajwel where she was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, that she underwent treatment till 23.11.1992, and that thereafter she gave a report to police and the police registered the case and investigated into. On behalf of the Prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6, besides M.Os. 1 to 5, were marked. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. against A1 to A3, and accordingly sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The trial Court further convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 325 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Accused No.4 in the case was acquitted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. In the appeal preferred by A1 to A3, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A2 and A3 for the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., but confirmed the sentence under Section 498-A I.P.C., imposed against A1 and modified the sentence under Section 325 I.P.C. to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences imposed on A1 were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A1 preferred the present revision petition, questioning the legality and correctness thereof.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. were not made out against the revision petitioner, that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police, that it was not a case of demand for additional dowry, that P.W.8 was not the medical officer who treated P.W.1 and failure to examine the Doctor who treated P.W.1 was fatal to the case of the Prosecution, and that the stick alleged to have been inserted into the vagina of P.W.1 was not seized. Therefore, he prays to set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that she was being harassed by A1 and her version with regard to the harassment was consistent through out, that there is absolutely no reason for P.W. 1 to speak false against her husband on this aspect, that P.W.8 was the Doctor who treated P.W.1 and was a competent person to depose about the nature of the injuries and their severity, and that the non-seizure of the stick does not in any way affect the case of the Prosecution. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.