THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 25.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, by judgment dated 20.05.2003 in C.C.No.320 of 2001, was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that on 11.1.1997, pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, along with Prohibition & Excise Inspector, D.T.F, Guntur and other officials of Mangalagiri, proceeded to the house bearing No.11-513 of Keerthipalem in Pedavaadlapudi Village. That A.1 was found to be present in the house and after serving search warrant on him, it was searched in the presence of mediators and two gunny bags were found loaded with Whisky bottles. One containing 48 bagpiper whiskey bottles of 750 ML each capacity and 47 bottles of same brand and capacity were found in the another bag. The material objects were seized and a crime in P.R.No.254/96-97 was registered by S.H.O. P & E, Mangalagiri. under cover of Ex.P.4. A.1 stated that A.2 has taken the said house on lease. A.2 to A.6 were conducting liquor sales topettyliquor vendors and A6 used to invest money to the said business, T.Yogabharath, P & E Inspector took the bottle each as sample for analysis from both the gunny bags, sealed both samples and the gunny bagas containing the remaining liquor botttels affixed identity slips on both the same bottles and gunny bags and arrested A.1 after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the contraband under cover of Mediator’s report. Subsequently, on 4.5.1997 S.T.N.Reddy, P & E Inspector, Mangalagiri arrested A2. A.3 ,A.4 , and A.6 surrendered before the court . After investigation,, a charge sheet was laid and the case was taken 3. That 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 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, 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 the 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 mated out to the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 113- B of Indian Evidence Act and that of Section 304 (B) IPC are established. 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 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 is dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the first appellate court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -12-2009 Stp