IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 625 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in CRL.A NO : 99 dated 08/02/2010 on the file of the Court of the to set aside the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad in S.C. No. 117 of 2007 dated 24-09-2009 and confirmed by the Hon'ble I Additional Sessions Judge, at Adilabad in Crl.A. No. 99 of 2009, dated 08-02-2010 so far as the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is concerned and be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to acquit the petitioner / accused., preferred against the order in SC 117 2007 dated 24/09/2009 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad) Between: Nathari Durgaiah S/o. Mallaiah R/o. China Buda, Bellampalli Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The State Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Through SHO., Bellampalli II Town Police Station, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 625 of 2010 Judgment: This revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Crl.A.No. 99 of 2009, which, in turn, was filed against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad in S.C.No. 117 of 2007. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: Ramya @ Kantha, the deceased herein, was married to the accused, four years earlier to the incident. The accused addicted to liquor, used to harass the deceased; on account of that the deceased came back to her house and was staying with her parents. Fifteen days earlier to the incident, the accused took her back and on 3.3.206, the deceased again came back to her house. Next day i.e., 4.3.2006, the accused also came to her house. Thereafter, on account of the constant harassment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 5.3.2006 at about noon time by setting fire to herself by pouring kerosene. On a complaint given by her mother a case in Cr.No. 17 of 2006 was registered under sections 498-A, 109 and 309 IPC and investigation was taken up. 3. During the course of investigation, PWs 1 of 16 were examined and Exs P-1 to P-15 were marked, apart from Mo-1. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution – PW-1 (S. Swaroopa) is the mother of the deceased. She spoke about the marriage of the deceased with the accused; their living happily for one year and thereafter the accused harassing the deceased etc. Six months prior to the death of the deceased, they lived in PW-1’s house for four or five months, during that period also the deceased informed PW-1 about the harassment meted out to her by the accused. After living with PW-1 four or five months, the deceased and accused went to their house; but, within a week, the deceased returned to PW-1’s house and complained that the accused was not looking after her properly. As the deceased fell sick, PW-1 took her to Mancherial Hospital and three days thereafter the accused came and questioned the deceased as to how she came away without informing him and beat her. Then again the deceased started living with PW-1. Again, fifteen days prior to her death, the deceased went to accused and again came back to PW-1’s house three days prior to the incident. One day, prior to the death of the deceased, the accused came to PW-1’s house at about 10-00 AM, they both had lunch and were preparing to go to their house. At that time PW-1 went out to STD booth to speak to her son, who was away. While she was coming back, she learnt about some galata at the house of Bakkamma (PW-3); she went there and saw her daughter and the accused there. The accused entered that house and bolted the door from inside and thereafter the accused and deceased went away from there; but PW-1 remained at the house of PW-3, itself, and within some time PW-2 (Soumya) informed that the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to herself. PW-1 poured water to put off the flames and took her to Hospital for treatment. The deceased was shifted to Mancherial Hospital for treatment, where she died. 4. PW-2 (Soumya) is the sister of the deceased. She stated that the accused used to beat the deceased in drunken state of mind. She used to come to her mother’s house frequently. The accused also stayed in their house for some time. The deceased used to go to the house of the accused and come back whenever she was harassed. Even on the date of the incident, after lunch, the accused went to the house of Kavitha. The deceased also followed the accused and some galata took place there. There also the accused beat the deceased. The accused abused the deceased and the deceased went into bath-room, poured kerosene on her and set fire to herself. 4. PW-3 (Bakkamma) deposed that there were disputes between Kavitha and her husband. She also stated about her learning about the deceased setting fire to herself by pouring kerosene. PWs-4, 5 and 6 turned hostile and did not state anything. 5. PW-7, brother of the deceased stated that he learnt about the incident. PWs-8, 11 and 12 are the panch witnesses for inquest. PW-9 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and conducted inquest. PW-10 is the Medical Officer that conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW-13 deposed that about three years back, at about noon time, while she was fetching water, the deceased also came to fetch water, after that the accused followed her and went to the house of Kavitha. Meanwhile, the deceased went to the house of Kavitha, brought both the accused and Kavitha out of the house and after that PW-1 went there and compromised the matter and they went away. Immediately thereafter the deceased set fire to herself. 6. The prosecution case is that the accused was continuously harassing the deceased; the cause for committal of suicide by the deceased was of her being scolded by the accused, when the accused went to the house of Kavitha and bolted from inside; the deceased went there and quarreled with him there. 7. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 etc., reveals that such incident of the accused entering the house of Kavitha, bolting the door from inside and thereafter the deceased committing suicide after going home, has taken place. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused both under sections 498-A and 306 IPC; whereas the learned appellate judge has rightly set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 498-A IPC, as the allegations against the accused, even if it is accepted to be true also, would not constitute an offence under section 498-A IPC, as the harassment was not in connection with any dowry etc. 9. As far as, S. 306 IPC is concerned, the immediate cause for the deceased for committing suicide was the act of the accused entering the house of some other lady and when she went there and quarreled with her, his beating her. Thus the offence under section 306 IPC is definitely constituted. As such there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 306 IPC and the same is accordingly confirmed. 10. In all these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the revision case and it is accordingly dismissed. 11. But, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to one year, while sustaining the sentence of fine. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioner/accused shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. March 30, 2010. *BVS