THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.52 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 4-1-2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2003 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court) Nalgonda, at Miryalguda, whereby the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miyalguda by judgment dated 20.08.2003 in S.C.No. 129 of 2001, was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that the deceased was married to A1 on 5-2-1998; that Rs.70,000/- was agreed to be paid towards dowry; that Rs.45,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and balance was promised to be paid later; that they lived together happily for about a year; that thereafter A.1 and his mother A2 started harassing the deceased to get the balance amount of dowry; that she was also driven out of her matrimonial home; that a Panchayat was raised before the elders and she was sent back to her in- laws; that six months back i.e. in the month of January,2000 both the accused beat her; that she became unconscious and she remained so from morning till evening on that day; that on coming to know of the same, her grand- mother got her removed to hospital; that she was treated at Yashoda hospital in Hyderabad; that thereafter she was living with her parents at Miryalguda and that she was teaching in a private school there. Meanwhile, on 21.6.2000 A1 got issued a legal notice to her stating that her father had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from others on his surety and failed to repay the same and demanded her to join him within a week. 3. Thinking in case she joins her husband, fearing further ill treatment and harassment by A1 and A2, the deceased disgusted with the life, taking advantage of absence of her parents, closed the doors of the house and poured kerosene on her body and set herself afire on 27-6-2000 at about 6.30 p.m. She suffered severe burn injuries and succumbed thereto while undergoing treatment at Area Hospital in Miryalguda; that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda recorded her dying declaration and that the Investigating Officer also recorded such statement during the intervening night of 27/28-6-2000. 4. The Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os 1 to 3 in support of its case whereas Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked on behalf of the defence. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court i.e. Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalguda found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC; that A2 was not found guilty for the said offence and she was acquitted. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda (PW.15) recorded the dying declaration under Ex.P.16 wherein the deceased made a categorical statement that A.1 demanded additional dowry and caused harassment on that count besides stating as to her receiving legal notice from A1 to join him within seven days. Anticipating that both the accused may not allow her to live, she has taken the extreme step. 6. The evidence of material witnesses namely PWs 2 to 5 and 8 is to the effect that the accused demanded additional dowry and the dying declaration also corroborates the same and that keeping in view the first instance of A1 and A2 beating the deceased, her becoming unconscious and hospitalisation and the second instance of legal notice sent by A1 the deceased had taken the extreme step. It is a fact that the deceased had received a legal notice just a week before the incident; that since she was married to A1 on 5-2-1998, her death was within the period of seven years of her marriage. Ex.P.1, dying declaration and the evidence of material witnesses go to show that there was demand of additional dowry and cruelty and harassment was meted out to the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 113- B of Indian Evidence Act and that of Section 304 (B) IPC are attracted. 7. In the circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-A.1 that there was no proximity between the alleged harassment and the death of the deceased, cannot be accepted and also the other contention that since the deceased suffered 100% burn injuries, it was not possible for her to give such a categorical statement under Ex.P.16 dying declaration, is also not acceptable to the court in view of the medical evidence as well as preliminary recording of PW.15- learned Judicial First Class Magistrate as to the mental condition of the deceased at that time. 8. Further in the circumstance, the confirmation by the first appellate court of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court does not suffer from any legal infirmities and as such does not warrant interference from this court, in any way. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp