Telangana High Court
Dunna Vijay, Kalwakurthy vs State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P.,High Court, ... on 1 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1555 OF 2010
ORDER:
The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in SC.No.42 of 2009, vide Judgment dated 28.10.2007, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.142/2009 before the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, and the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 22.07.2010, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner/accused is that the deceased was married 12 years prior to the incident. Śhe 2 did not have any children. However, the accused used to harass her for not giving birth to child. They were constantly quarrelling and never lived amicably. The accused used to gamble. The father of the accused died and when ceremonies were held, the accused beat the deceased for the reason of dropping utensils on the ground.
4. The deceased received burn injuries on 09.06.2008. On the said date, she was examined by the Magistrate. However, no crime was registered, though in the Dying Declaration she stated that the accused poured Kerosene on her and asked her to go and die for which reason she set fire to herself. After six days i.e. on 15.06.2008, statement of the deceased was again recorded by the Police. In the said statement, the deceased stated that the accused had poured Kerosene and set her on fire, resulting in the burn injuries. On the basis of the statement recorded on 15.06.2008 by the Police, FIR under Section 307 for attempting to commit murder was registered by the Police. The case was not registered under Section 498-A. However, during the investigation after the death of the deceased, the Police filed charge sheet under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3
5. The trial Judge examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. PWs.1 and 2 are the sisters and PWs.3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. All the witnesses have spoken about the accused beating the deceased for not giving birth to the children. On the basis of the two Dying Declarations made before Magistrate, Police and also statements of PWs.1 to 4, the Court below found that the accused had abetted commission of suicide and accordingly conviction was recorded.
6. Learned Sessions Judge also concurred with the findings of the Magistrate and confirmed the conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the question of abetting suicide does not arise. The two Dying Declarations are contradictory to one another. In the first Dying Declaration made to the Magistrate, the deceased stated that the accused poured Kerosene on her and she lit fire to herself. However, coming to the statement made to the Police, she stated that the accused poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire. In the said circumstances of contradictory Dying Declarations, neither can be believed.
4
8. He relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the similar situation held that when there are contradictory Dying Declarations regarding context in which the deceased caught fire, benefit of doubt was extended and accused were acquitted.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Courts below have correctly found that the accused was complicit of abetting suicide.
10. Admittedly, the deceased received burn injuries on 09.06.2008 and in the statement made to the Magistrate she stated that the accused poured Kerosene on her and she lit fire to herself. However, crime was not registered. PWs.11 and 12 who are Investigating Offices have not stated the reasons as to why FIR was not registered till 15.06.2008. On 15.06.2008, statement was recorded by the Police in which the deceased stated that the accused poured Kerosene on her and lit her on fire, for which reason, attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It has to be noted that no 1 (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 69 5 offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was registered at the first instance.
11. PWs.1 to 4 have made false allegations regarding harassment by the accused on account of the deceased not having children. Not a single specific instance was narrated by the witnesses regarding abetting. Further, it has to be noted that in FIR and the Panchanama, it was mentioned that there was a broken window. PWs.5 and 6 who are independent witnesses present at the time of incident stated that she bolted herself in the room and set fire. It was the neighbours and others who had broken up the window and took her to the hospital. When the said panchanama and FIR reflect that there was a broken window through which others gained entry and later she was taken to the hospital, the said aspect was also not explained by the prosecution.
12. Keeping in view the contradictory version of the second Dying Declaration implicating the accused that the accused of attempting to commit murder, it appears that on account of the death, allegations were made against the revision petitioner/accused.
6
13. In view of there being no specific allegations and vague and omni bus allegations made regarding harassment, the offence under Section 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case stands allowed setting aside the Judgment dated 22.07.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.No.142/2009, confirming the conviction recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.42/2009, dt. 28.10.2007, and the Revision petitioner is acquitted.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 01.07.2024 tk