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
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.
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.
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
(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 69
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.
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
