THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2508 OF 2004 Date:02.09.2011 BETWEEEN: K.Revanna … Appellant AND State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2508 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. 2. Originally, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. only. Subsequent to trial of the case, the lower Court reopened the case and framed additional charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. and thereafter, the accused was given an opportunity to recall witnesses of his choice for further cross examination. The accused and the deceased, who are husband and wife, were workers in Glass Factory. Their marriage took place eight years prior to the offence. They have one son and one daughter. It is alleged that because of financial constraints, they could not pull on their family and therefore, requested parents of the deceased for financial assistance and that they could not get the same as they were unable to help the accused and the deceased. It was not the cause for death of the deceased. It is alleged that the accused used to visit the house late in the night everyday in intoxicated condition and used to quarrel with the deceased on some pretext or the other and that on the night of 19.02.2003, at about 11.30 p.m., the accused came to the house in the same manner and when the deceased gave food to the accused with some pickle, the accused quarreled with the deceased for not preparing dal and curry and washed his hands in the same plate without eating and that unable to bear the same, the deceased set fire to herself by pouring kerosene on herself at about 12 mid night. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. 3. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are house owner and his wife, and P.W.3- another neighbour turned hostile to the prosecution. The lower Court based its conclusion on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are brother’s wife and mother of the deceased. None of P.Ws.4 and 5 speak to the incident alleged to have taken place on the night of 19.02.2003 between the accused and the deceased, which triggered the deceased to take decision to commit suicide. The deceased was resident of Hyderabad, whereas P.W.5, who is mother of the deceased, is a resident of Gurijala of Kurnool District. But P.W.4 is a resident of Hyderabad in a different locality. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that the accused used to take drinks everyday and beat his wife. In cross examination, she deposed that she used to visit house of the deceased once in two days. According to her, distance between her house and house of the deceased is about one kilometer. She categorically stated in cross examination that she did not see the accused beating his wife in drunken condition. P.W.5 deposed that the accused used to return home during mid night in drunken condition and demand the wife to prepare food. Except that, P.W.5 did not state anything in her examination in chief. Unfortunately, in cross examination, it was elicited by the defence counsel that on one occasion, the accused beat her daughter in her presence at Hyderabad. It was further elicited from P.W.5 that her daughter used to complain that the accused was demanding money and that on one occasion, she paid Rs.5,000/- to him. She says that she stated to the police that she gave Rs.3,000/- to the accused after marriage on his demand. At any rate, this is not a case attracting clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C., in the sense that there was no harassment of the deceased for the sake of any property or goods. Except the solitary instance of P.W.5 witnessing beating of the deceased by the accused in drunken condition, this is not a case where P.W.5 saw similar instances frequently. It is not evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased used to complain to her about the accused beating her frequently and harassing her in drunken condition. This is not a case where the deceased became frustrated in her life because of the ill-treatment of accused and expressed her intention to P.W.5 to die. This is a case which is said to relate to a single incident which took place on the night of the incident where a quarrel occurred between the accused and the deceased in serving food to the accused without dal and curry but with only pickle. The said reason was not spoken to by any of the prosecution witnesses. On stray evidence of P.W.5 which was elicited in cross examination, I am of the opinion that conviction should not have been based by the lower Court under Section 498-A I.P.C. I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out a case of cruelty envisaged under clause (a) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. against the accused. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/accused and acquitted him. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 02.09.2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2508 OF 2004 DATED: 02.09.2011 AMD