HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 887 of 2004 O R D E R: Two accused faced trial in S.C.No. 412 of 2000 on the file of the Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tenali. The learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs. 306 and 498-A IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable u/Sec. 306 IPC and were further convicted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- against each of them. 2. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No. 275 of 2001 before the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction imposed against both the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 306 IPC. ( The learned Sessions Judge found that both the accused were not guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 306 IPC.) The conviction recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC was confirmed by the appellate court. 3. The 1st accused and 2nd accused are mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased Bellapu Annapurna. Both the accused allegedly ill-treated the deceased with cruelty suspecting her fidelity believing that the deceased had taken a paramour. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused treated the deceased with such cruelty as to drive the deceased to commit suicide on 4.12.1999 by pouring kerosene over herself and immolating herself. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 11 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P11 in support of its case. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased. He is the son of A-1 and the brother of A-2. It is not surprise that he did not support the prosecution story. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. It is equally not surprise that the father of the deceased is supported the case of the deceased and the prosecution. P.W.3 is the villager belonging to the village of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 is the mediator at the time of inquest. P.W.5 is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the Head Constable, who recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P6. P.W.8 is the another Head Constable, who registered the FIR in this case. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.10 is the then Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P11. 4. P.W.1, as already pointed out did not support the prosecution story. He claimed that his mother and sister treated the deceased with affection during her life time. P.W.2 -father of the deceased contended that the deceased informed him when he met her at hospital that she attempted to commit suicide as the accused treated her with cruelty suspecting her fidelity. P.W.3 is the resident of the village to which P.W.2 and the deceased belonged to. He deposed that he went to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, along with P.W.2 and another after coming to know of the attempt of the deceased committing suicide. He further deposed that the deceased informed P.W.3 and others that she attempted to commit suicide as the accused had been suspecting her fidelity. 5. Sri A.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel representing both the accused drew my attention to the evidence of P.W.2 vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.2 did not depose that P.W.3 accompanied him to the Government General Hospital, Guntur where the deceased was undergoing treatment. The evidence of P.W.2 reads that P.W.2 and others came to know about the attempt of the deceased. P.W.2 incidentally mentioned in his evidence as “we”. However, it is not clarified by P.W.2 as to who ‘We’ means. He did not refer to P.W.3 as one of the persons accompanying P.W.2 to the hospital. 6. P.W.4, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, deposed that the mediators opined that the death of the deceased was on account of suicide, owing to the harassment of the deceased by the accused. 7. P.W.10 also deposed that the deceased mentioned that the accused harassed her suspecting her fidelity. In Ex.P6 the deceased stated that the accused who are the mother-in-law ad sister-in-law of the deceased used to ill-treat her on one pretext or the other. She further stated that on 4.12.1999 the deceased poured kerosene over herself at the residence and set fire to her with a view to commit suicide. 8. It is not stated in Ex.P6 that either on the date of the incident or around the date of incident, the accused ill-treated the deceased with cruelty prompting the deceased to attempt to commit suicide. The two statements in Ex.P6 would appear to be disjoint statements. One of the statements under Ex.P6 is that both the accused were ill-treating the deceased on one count or the other. The other statement is that the deceased attempted to commit suicide. From Ex-P6, I am afraid, it cannot be said that the deceased attributed ill-treatment by A1 and A2 as the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. 9. Ex.P11 is the dying declaration recorded by P.W.10. In Ex.P11, the deceased stated that on 4.12.1999, the 1st accused quarrelled with the deceased alleging that the deceased has taken a concubine and that the deceased consequently attempted to commit suicide. In Ex.P11, the deceased further stated that both the accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. Moreover in Ex.P11, the deceased surprisingly stated that both the accused used to harass her prior to and after her marriage with P.W.1. It is not the case of anybody that the deceased and the accused were relatives prior to their marriage. Despite the same, the deceased curiously stated in Ex.P11 that the accused used to harass her prior to her marriage and subsequent to her marriage suspecting her fidelity. 10. Another factor is the inconsistency between Ex.P6 and P11. Ex.P6 was recorded at 7.30 p.m. and Ex.P11 was recorded at 7.00 p.m. I do not understand why it became necessary for the police to record the statement of the deceased under Ex.P6 after P.W.10 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased-Ex.P11. While the gap between Exs.P11 and P6 is only half-an–hour, in Ex.P6 the deceased did not speak about the minimum cruelty on the part of the accused prior to her committing suicide. She mentioned about the complicity of the A-1 in abusing her about her chastity on the date of commission of suicide by the accused when the deceased made statement to P.W.10 under Ex.P11. No explanation is forthcoming about contradiction between the two statements under Exs.P6 and P11. 11. It may be noticed that the deceased unfortunately died in about six or seven months after her marriage with P.W.1. Indeed Sec.498- A IPC would attract presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Sec. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, if a woman committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage, it would be assumed that the suicide was an abatement by the husband or the relatives of such married woman. The question of abatement to commit suicide did not arise in this case, as the appellate court acquitting A-1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 306 IPC. 12. Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption in respect of dowry death punishable u/sec. 304-B IPC. It does not deal with the commission of the offence u/sec. 498-A IPC. Sec. 498- A IPC has two limbs. The cruelty spoken of u/Sec. 498-A IPC need not be for dowry, but also can be for any other purpose. Sec.498-A Explanation (a) of IPC defines cruelty as wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause to herself any bodily injury. The question is whether the prosecution has established that the conduct of A-1 and A2 was such as to fall within the ambit of Sec. 498-A explanting (a) of IPC. 13. The only evidence in this regard is the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 also does not speak in categorical terms about the alleged cruelty of A-1 and A2 towards the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 is more an indirect evidence on the strength of the revision of the deceased after the deceased attempted to commit suicide. The evidence of P.W.3 deserves to be discarded whether P.W.2 did not speak about the presence of P.W.3 in view of the contradictions between the statements under Exs.P6 and P11. The two statements cannot supply the requisite inference against the accused that the accused were guilty of the wilful conduct amounting to cruelty. The prosecution thus failed to establish that both the accused are guilty of cruelty against the accused. 14. The conviction recorded against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC therefore, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside as the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The accused deserve to be acquitted of the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC. 15. Accordingly, the revision case is allowed. Both the accused are found not guilty of the offence u/Sec. 498-A IPC and are acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if paid by the accused-revision petitioners, shall be refunded to them. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J DT. 10-2-2011 Mjl/*