IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that rehabilitation through probation can be appropriate even after conviction, considering the offender's character and circumstances.

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. 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. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learn