IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1168 OF 2004 Between: Vallapu Ramachandru ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1168 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”) is directed against the Judgment, dated 30.06.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, (III – FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and further conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, as recorded in the judgment, dated 24.10.2003, in Sessions Case No.971 of 2000, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: Marriage of the deceased, Vallapu Padma, was performed with the accused in the year 1983. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.15,000/-, gold, silver ornaments and other articles were given to the accused towards dowry. They lived happily for about twelve years. They were blessed with one son and one daughter. Both the deceased and accused were doing vegetable business. Four years prior to the death of the deceased, the accused addicted to liquor, developed illegal intimacy with other woman and started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally. When the same was informed to the parents of the deceased, they chastised the deceased and advised to give up his vices. Despite the same, there was no change in the attitude of accused. On 12.05.2000, the accused beat the deceased indiscriminately, abused in filthy language and abetted her to die, so that he can marry another woman. Vexed with the said harassment, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself. Then the son of the deceased along with others extinguished the fire and immediately, she was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. On receipt of medical intimation, III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, recorded the statement of the deceased. On 15.05.2000, PW.1, brother of the deceased, lodged Ex.P-1 – complaint. Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C., as the deceased succumbed to burn injuries at the hospital. Police observed the scene of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, doctor conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of the burn injuries. The accused was arrested on 29.07.2000 and sent to the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet. 3. When charges for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no oral evidence, but Ex.D-1 was got marked on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, particularly placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is evidence to show that it is a case where the deceased set fire to herself and committed suicide, but not due to the abetment of the accused; that Ex.D-1 – Dying Declaration, which is the statement recorded by the competent judicial officer, would go to show that the deceased committed suicide; that there is no evidence except the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 5, who are closely related; that there is no other evidence to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide; that when two views are reasonably possible, the view in favour of the accused should have been taken into consideration and therefore, he prays that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is clear that the deceased committed suicide as a result of abetment by the accused; that the dying declaration was not a truthful statement as the deceased was under the influence of the accused at the time of giving Ex.D-1 statement; that in view of the fact that Ex.D-1 is not a truthful statement, both the Courts below placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5; that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 would clearly go to show that the deceased died as a result of abetment made by the accused to her; that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence sitting as if in an appeal. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, or illegal or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. To know whether the evidences are correct or not, the evidence of prosecution witnesses has to be looked into. 11. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. She was admitted in the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, after sustaining injuries. The opinion as to the cause of the death of the deceased as submitted to by PW.1 and as per recitals in Ex.P-6 – post mortem report remained unchallenged. Similarly, the investigating officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. So, the death of the deceased due to burn injuries is not in dispute. Marriage of the deceased with the accused is not in dispute. During lawful wedlock, the deceased begot two children. Both the accused and the deceased were doing vegetable business. It is the case of the prosecution that for four years prior to the death of the deceased, the accused started harassing the deceased, because, he accustomed to vices. The deceased informed about the alleged harassment made by the accused to her relatives. Even though the parents of the deceased chastised the accused, there was no change in his attitude. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, who are closely related to the deceased. Pws.6 to 8, who are said to be the neighbourers, rushed to the scene of occurrence after coming to know about the same. But, they did not support the case of the prosecution. Whereas, the accused is relying upon the statement of the deceased recorded by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, which was marked as Ex.D-1. 12. There cannot be any dispute that when two views are reasonably possible in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the view which is favourable to the accused has to be adopted. PWs.1 to 5 are closely related to the deceased. They have categorically stated that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide, so that he can marry another woman. Close relationship is not a ground to disbelieve their evidence. After scrutinizing and evaluating the same, if they are found to be truthful witnesses, there is no legal bar to base the conviction on the evidence of interested witnesses. They must put in the category of wholly reliable. On coming to know about the sustaining of burn injuries by the deceased, these witnesses went to the hospital and questioned the deceased as to how she sustained burn injuries, for which the deceased stated that because of harassment and ill-treatment made by the accused, she poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and that the accused abetted her to commit suicide, so that he can marry another woman. The statement given by the deceased to these witnesses amounts to a dying declaration, which comes within the meaning of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”). A statement made by a person, either written or verbal, as to the cause of the death or any one of the circumstances resulting in her death in case in which the death of that person comes into question is admissible in evidence, under Section 32 (1) of the Act. When a statement falls under Section 32 clause (1) of the Act is found to be true, trustworthy and reliable and not an outcome of tutoring or prompting by any of the relatives of the deceased, then certainly, it can be acted upon and a conviction can be maintained even without any further corroboration. 13. Among the five witnesses, PWs.1 to 5, the evidence of PW.5 is most important. Admittedly, he is the son of the deceased and the accused. He was aged about 12 years at the time of incident. He was present at the time of the deceased sustaining burn injuries. His presence at the time of occurrence was spoken to by PWs.7 and 8, who rushed to the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident. Though they were declared hostile by the prosecution, such part of their testimony, which inspires confidence, can be taken for corroborating the other evidence, if any, available on record. Therefore, presence of PW.5 at the relevant point of time of the incident is established beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no other reason for a boy to speak false against his father. He categorically and clearly stated about the dispute between his father and mother and that his father abetted his mother to die, so as to marry another woman, and unable to bear the said harassment the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to herself. Therefore, the trial Court has placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of PW.5, who is no other than the son of the deceased and the accused. The said finding was confirmed by the appellate Court. There are absolutely no grounds to disbelieve the presence of PW.5 at the relevant point of time of incident. He is the natural witness to be present at the house and he is the best person to speak as to what had happened just prior to the incident. It is not the case of the accused that he was made to speak false against him for some other reason. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.5 coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is established beyond doubt that because of abetment made by the accused, the deceased committed suicide. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ex.D-1, which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, would go to show that the deceased poured kerosene on her and set fire to herself. PWs.1 to 4 stated that the deceased informed them that she was under the influence of the accused and the deceased was made to give a statement to the Magistrate as if she committed the suicide. Admittedly, the accused was the person who took his wife to the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. Therefore, there was every possibility of tutoring her by the accused to give a statement as if she committed suicide. There are circumstances, which would indicate that Ex.D-1 cannot be said to be a true and voluntary statement given by the deceased, for the simple reason that she would not have sustained 98% burn injuries all over the body, when she allegedly poured kerosene at the feet and set fire to herself. Therefore, the deceased also informed PWs.1 to 4 to that effect that under the influence of the accused she had to give a statement to the Magistrate, as if she committed suicide. Therefore, the reason for giving statement as in Ex.D-1 appears to be proper and Ex.D-1 cannot be said to be true and correct statement given by the deceased. That is the reason why both the Courts below had not placed any reliance on Ex.D-1, because Ex.D-1 is not a true and correct statement given by the deceased. So, the question of second possibility of deceased committing suicide by herself cannot be accepted. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court. 14. With regard to the sentence, the incident had taken place about a decade back. The accused is having two children. Therefore, a lenient view can be taken. 15. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner of the offences under Section 306 and 498A I.P.C., is confirmed. But, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for seven years to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Period of detention, if any, underwent by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 16. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification of sentence. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 01, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1168 OF 2004 July 01, 2010