THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1317 OF 2004 DATED: 08-07-2010 Between Sangavarapu Chenna Kesava Rao@ Babi …Petitioners-Accused And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1317 OF 2004 ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 05-08-2004, in Crl.A.No.193 of 2000, on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Eluru, in confirming the convictions of the petitioner-A1 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years and three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under each count, in default to undergo S.I. for one month under each count, as recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, vide judgment, dated 31-07-2000, in S.C.No.206 of 1999, 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: Mutyala Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased No.1’) is the wife of A1 and Jyothi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased No.2’) is the daughter of A1 and deceased No.1. The marriage of A1 with the deceased No.1 was performed in the year 1985. During the lawful wedlock, deceased No.2 and one son by name Bharath were born. Both of them lived happily for about two years after the marriage. Later the petitioner at the instigation of his parents, bother and sister subjected the deceased No.1 to cruelty to bring money from her parents. In spite of paying an amount of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner has not satisfied with the amount and started harassing the deceased No.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- by selling away the land standing in her name. It is alleged that the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with one Dornala Swarna Latha and neglected deceased No.1. Unable to bear the harassment, deceased No.1 consumed pesticide poison and gave it to her son and daughter. Deceased Nos. 1 and 2 died whereas her son was survived. Then P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the police, who registered a case under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, police observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, P.Ws. 9 and 10 conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and opined that both the deceased died as a result of consuming Organo Phosphate Insecticide Poison. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. When charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 besides case property, M.Os.1 to 3. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused except marking Ex.D1, which is the portion in Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, while acquitting A2 to A5 of the offences with which they were charged, convicted and sentenced A1 as above. On appeal by A1, the said convictions and sentences were confirmed by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment. Challenging the same, the present revision has been preferred. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 contended that necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 IPC have not been established in view of the fact that there is no intentional instigation by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide or that there was no intentional aiding and therefore, in the absence of any evidence, convicting the petitioner of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC is unsustainable and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with inasmuch as the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would go to show that the acts of the petitioner are such, which facilitated the deceased to commit suicide, that both the courts below after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are improper, illegal or incorrect or admissible evidence was overlooked or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. To prove the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be abetment. Abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C., which is as follows: “ 107 Abetment of a thing:- A person abets in doing of a thing, who- Firstly-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to Section 107 I.P.C. says that whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 12. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased No.1 and begotting two children during the lawful wedlock are not in dispute. The petitioner and the deceased No.1 lived happily for about two years after the marriage is also not in dispute. The deaths of both the deceased is also not in dispute. The inquest mediators opined in the inquest reports that the deaths of both the deceased were due to consuming pesticide poison. P.Ws. 9 and 10 who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 opined that both the deceased died as a result of consuming Organo Phosphate Insecticide Poison. 13. Now, it has to be seen whether there is any abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. 14. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who are closely related to the deceased. The neighbours P.Ws. 5 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution. If the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to accept their evidence in spite of the fact that they are the close relatives of the deceased. Relationship by itself is not a ground to reject the evidence. After proper evaluation of evidence, if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is found to be correct, reliance can be placed upon their evidence. There was consistent harassment to the deceased No.1 to bring dowry from her parents. There was also consistent harassment to her to bring dowry after selling away Ac.1.00 of land standing in her name. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would go to show that the petitioner developed extra marital relationship with one Dornala Swarna Latha and neglected his wife and children. So these acts certainly facilitated a sensitive woman like deceased No.1 to take extreme step of committing suicide by consuming pesticide poison. 15. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 that there were disputes between the petitioner and deceased No.1 because of continuous harassment by the petitioner with regard to demanding of dowry. It is not in dispute that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 died on 09-03-1997 while they were living with the petitioner at Polavaram. There were no other circumstances to indicate that the deceased No.1 taken extreme step of consuming poison after giving the same to her son and daughter. If really there was no such harassment, definitely, the petitioner had taken both the deceased and the other child to the hospital, but he has not done so. As the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with another woman, it facilitated the deceased to commit suicide. When the husband developed extra marital relationship with another woman, a legally wedded wife would not tolerate the same. So in such circumstances, deceased No.1 must have consumed poison unable to bear the said acts of the petitioner. Therefore, the acts of the petitioner squarely fall under explanation 2 to Section 107 IPC. None of the findings is shown to be perverse in view of the fact that there is continuous harassment for additional dowry, which is an offence punishable under explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC are confirmed. Further, conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is also confirmed. 15. Considering the facts that the wife and daughter of the petitioner died in the same incident, that subsequently, his son also died and the case is pending for the last decade, a lenient view can be taken with regard to sentence. Therefore, sentence is reduced from three years R.I. to two years R.I. while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 16. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:08-07-2010 Hsd