THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.79 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed assailing the judgment dated 27.12.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed on the sole accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru by his judgment dated 4.9.2003 in S.C.No.470 of 2001 was confirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased was married to the revision petitioner-accused six years back. The marriage was consummated. Both of them were leading a married life. That the revision petitioner- accused used to harass the deceased from the time of marriage itself both mentally and physically and used to ill- treat her on account of which she used to go to her parents’ place. However, her parents used to console and convince her and send her back to her matrimonial house. The revision petitioner-accused also used to suspect her character and that the elders on several occasions reprimanded him. However, there was no change in his attitude. 3. That on 19.5.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. the revision petitioner-accused found fault with his wife in not preparing curry and abused her suspecting her character. That being unable to bear with the ill-treatment, and having developed aversion towards life, the deceased poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze. That neighbours came to her rescue and removed her to P.H.C., Kamarvarapukota and from there she was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, but she succumbed to the burn injuries at 6.10 p.m. while undergoing treatment. That prior to her death, the deceased is alleged to have stated before the Medical Officer Dr.Anuradha that she had taken the extreme step due to family disputes. 4. That the revision petitioner was indicted in Crime No.31 of 1999 for the offence under Section 306 IPC and charge sheet was also laid against him for the said offence in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi and the same was committed by the learned Magistrate to the court of Sessions in P.R.C.No.9/2000 which in turn, was made over to the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru for disposal according to law. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os 1 and 2. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the revision petitioner- accused. The defence of the accused was one of denial. 5. Taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material brought on record by the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, found the revision petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. 6. The trial court mostly relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5. PW.1 is the father, PW.2 is the mother, PW.3 is the sister and PW.5 is the maternal aunt of the deceased-Peddintulu. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 is to the effect that due to the harassment, ill-treatment, beating and also suspecting her character by the revision petitioner, his wife Peddintulu committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. When specific suggestion was put to PWs 1,2 and 3 in their cross examination, they denied that because they did not treat the deceased properly by providing her with some required things like customary articles and other things and as they have failed to keep up their promise in providing such things, the deceased had taken the extreme step. That even the evidence of PW.5 corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Rest of the witnesses are official witnesses and they have testified as to the part played by them during the course of investigation of the case. It seems that the trial court while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act in coming to the conclusion in finding the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as already stated in Para 5, supra. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused mostly contended that since PWs 1,2,3 and 5 are related to the deceased, they are interested witnesses and the trial court ought not to have believed their evidence. He further contended that the trial court also failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased was living away from the revision petitioner-accused for about a year prior to the incident. Therefore, he submitted that the findings of the both the courts below may be set-aside and the revision petitioner-accused may be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner-accused for the said offence stating that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have properly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as well as other material. 9. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1-father and PW.2- mother reveals that their evidence does not suffer from any personal enmity towards the revision petitioner-accused. They appeared to have spoken to the actual happenings in the life of their deceased daughter, so also the evidence of PW.3 -sister of the deceased and PW.5- maternal aunt of the deceased. Moreover, it is settled law that when witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution, it cannot be said invariably that they are interested witnesses and their evidence is devoid of truth. In such cases, whenever the court considers the evidence of relations to be cogent and trustworthy, it can be acted upon. That in the case on hand, the trial court has rightly acted upon inter alia the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5. As such, the statement alleged to have been made by the deceased before the medical officer before her death that she had taken the extreme step due to family disputes can never be a defence proper or the one in the alternative. 10. Moreover, though the offence under Section 306 IPC is grave enough and though the trial court was satisfied that the evidence of prosecution case to be truthful and acted upon it in convicting the revision petitioner- accused, it appears to have taken a lenient view while imposing the sentence. Further, the lower appellate court also has taken note of the same while confirming such conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the revision petitioner-accused. 11. That being so, this revisional court is of the view that the findings of both the courts below do not, in any way, suffer from any error or irregularity, much less any illegality and as such, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with in any manner. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 12.03.2010. Stp