HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.381 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the State questioning sufficiency of sentence passed by the lower Court. The accused/respondent was convicted by the lower Court under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Though the sentences passed by the lower Court against the accused are in accordance with law, in the sense, they are legal sentences, the question is whether the lower Court properly exercised its discretion in passing sufficient sentence to the accused in proportionate to gravity of offences. In this case, marriage of the deceased with the accused took place on 27.07.1997. They have one son and one daughter. The allegations against the accused are to the effect that he was coming home in drunken state and was abusing and beating the deceased and that he was demanding the deceased to get some more dowry from her parents and brothers and that unbearable with the harassment of the accused, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself. It is a case of suicide and not homicide. Even though the deceased committed suicide on 19.12.2003 within 7 years of her marriage, there was no charge under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution itself was inappropriate in this case. It is true that in awarding the sentence, it must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and cannot be too low. Lower Court took a lenient view in this matter having regard to welfare of two children of the accused who are daughter and son. Apart from that, after the offence, the accused tried to put off the flames on body of the deceased and in that process, the accused also suffered burn injuries to his hands. Though they were not enough circumstances to be too lenient on the accused, I do not now propose to enhance the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC, since the accused had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower Court and did not file appeal against the conviction. After lapse of 7 years, I do not propose to disturb quantum of sentence of imprisonment in this case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 16th November, 2011. PNV