IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.79 OF 2006 Between: Mudddam Aligiah ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.79 OF 2006 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is filed against the Judgment, dated 03.01.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2004, on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner/A1 of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further conviction of the petitioner/A1 of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, recorded in the judgment, dated 26.03.2004, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2003, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: Marriage of A1 with Muddam Shobha Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was performed about 12 years prior to the death of the deceased. At the time of marriage, PW.1 gave Rs.80,000/- towards dowry to A1 besides house-hold articles. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the sister of A1. When A1 to A4 started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry from PW.1, who is no other than father of the deceased, placed the matter before the elders. Elders advised A1 to A4 not to ill-treat the deceased. But, A1 to A4 continued to harass the deceased, both physically and mentally. On 30.04.2002, the deceased asked permission of A1 to attend the marriage of her relatives. A1 refused to send her to the marriage function and beat her indiscriminately. Vexed with her life, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. A1 to A3 and some others took the deceased to the hospital at Choutuppal. PW.5 gave treatment. But, in the meanwhile, the deceased died. On coming to know about the incident, PW.1 rushed to Dhothigudem Village and found the dead body of his daughter. On 02.05.2002 at about 08:00 AM, PW.1 gave Ex.P-1 - report to PW.9 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Pochampally, basing on which police registered a case in Crime No.18 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C., took up investigation, inspected the scene of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. The viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. After receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner and after completion of investigation, PW.9 filed charge sheet. 3. When the charges under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C., were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6, besides case property, MO.1. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that because of abetment made by A1, the deceased committed suicide and before her death, it is A1 who subjected the deceased to cruelty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. As the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A2 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C., they were acquitted. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, A1 preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by A1. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner/A1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide, so as to punish him under Section 306 I.P.C.; that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner subjected the deceased to cruelty with regard to the demand of additional dowry; that both the Courts below gave perverse findings and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 is clear that because of abetment made by the petitioner only, the deceased committed suicide; that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with inasmuch as none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to evidence and hence, he 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 would 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. 11. Taking place of marriage between the petitioner/A1 and the deceased is not in dispute. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. The deceased died by consuming pesticide poison. Even the petitioner did not deny or dispute about the deceased committing suicide. For the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. there must be an abetment caused to the deceased in committing suicide. Abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C., which reads thus: “Abetment of a thing -- A person abets the doing of a thing, who Firstly – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 12. PWs.1, 2 and 4 are not direct witnesses to speak about the instigation or about the intentional aiding made by the petitioner to facilitate the deceased to commit suicide. Their evidence would go to show that the petitioner used to pick-up quarrel with the deceased always. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 would not disclose that because of abetment made by the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The findings are not based upon the evidence at all and can be said to be perverse findings, which can be interfered with by exercising the revisional powers of this Court. Therefore, conviction and sentence recorded against petitioner/A1 of the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside. 13. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C is concerned, the husband or relative of a husband coercing the wife to meet any unlawful demand or any valuable property or security is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. The evidence of PWs.1 and 4 would clearly go to show that the petitioner was harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry; that in that connection, a panchayat was convened and in the panchayat, the elders advised the petitioner not to ill-treat the deceased or demand additional dowry. So, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, it is very clear that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner with regard to demand of additional dowry. Therefore, prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner and the findings of both the Courts below with regard to the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. None of the findings are shown to be improper or illegal. Therefore, conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A1 of the charge under Section 498A I.P.C are liable to be confirmed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner/A1 during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 13, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.79 OF 2006 August 13, 2010