HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1478 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment vide judgment in SC No.425 of 2009, dated 15.11.2010 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge ( I FTC), Nalgonda, filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 was married to the deceased on 06.05.2007. At the time of marriage, Rs.3,50,000/- cash and gold ornaments were given. Having led their marital life for a period of one month, the appellants/ A2 and A3, who are the parents of A1, and also A1, A4 and A5( A1, A4 and A5 were acquitted), harassed the deceased for getting additional dowry and also used to say that the deceased was unlucky. The harassment continued over a period of time and unable to bear the harassment of these appellants and other accused, she poured kerosene on herself and set fire. The police, having investigated the case, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC against these appellants and three other accused.
2
3. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased stated that dowry was given and that the appellants and other accused were also harassing her deceased daughter. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are relatives also narrated regarding the harassment by the appellants and other accused.
4. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the Dying Declaration Ex.P10 found that the appellants herein, who are parents-in-law were responsible for harassing her. In the Dying Declaration, the deceased stated that her in-laws, who are the appellants were abusing her every day and stated that they did not like her. On the previous day also, since in-laws abused her, the deceased stated that on the next day, she tried to commit suicide. For the said reason, the learned Sessions Judge found that no offence was made out against any of the accused under Section 304-B of IPC. However, sentenced these appellants, who are parents in-law of the deceased under Section 498-A of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that similar allegations were leveled against A1, A4 and A5. However, they were acquitted of the charge. The Dying Declaration, which was recorded 3 cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the reason of there being no specific details, which were stated in the Dying Declaration. The allegations regarding harassment, as stated by the mother and other relatives of the deceased were omnibus in nature as far as the offences are concerned, for which reason, these appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reason why the deceased would give false statement against the appellants herein. For the reason of the deceased specifically stating that she has no grievance against husband, except the appellants herein, learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellants and acquitting others.
7. The evidence of the mother and relatives, P.Ws.4 and 5 is consistent and they specifically stated that after marriage, these appellants and others, i.e., husband, sister-in-law and brother-in- law of the deceased also harassed the deceased. Though the witnesses stated very specifically against A1, for the said reason, it cannot be said that whatever the deceased has stated in her Dying Declaration is incorrect. Though, no specific instances were 4 narrated in the Dying Declaration, in the back ground of the burns received, it cannot be expected that the deceased while undergoing treatment and when in pain, would narrate the details of harassment. The deceased has specifically stated that these appellants, who are her parents-in-law, did not like her and were verbally abusing her on a daily basis. Though, no specific details or narration is given by the deceased, it can be reasonably inferred that these appellants, who are parents-in-law were acting and saying words in the manner in which the deceased was offended.
8. For the said reasons, I find no grounds to interfere with the order of conviction under Section 498-A of IPC. Though the learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was no proper charge which was framed under Section 498-A of IPC, the contents of the charge framed under Section 304-B of IPC clearly indicates that charge was also framed for harassing her and consequence of which, the deceased committed suicide. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of charge being framed under Section 498-A of IPC, learned Sessions Judge 5 committed mistake in convicting the appellants for the said offence, cannot be accepted.
9. However, the case is of the year 2008 and the appellants have crossed 60 years of age. At this juncture, sending the appellants to prison, in my opinion, would not serve any useful purpose. Since the appellants were in jail during the course of investigation, interest of justice would be met, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
10. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in SC No.425 of 2009 dated 15.11.2010 is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed off.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.10.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1478 of 2010 Date: 27.10.2022.
kvs 7 8