IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMGBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1068 OF 2004 Between: Makam Shekar & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Addl.Public Prosecutor The court made the following : (order follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1068 OF 2004 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence passed by the I- Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1999, dated 30-06-2004 confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence on charge under section 306 IPC inflicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahbubmagar, in SC.No.232 of 1997, dated 25-2-1999 whereby and whereunder the petitioners A1 and A2 were convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the charges under section 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 306 IPC and directed to run the sentences concurrently and A-3 was acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges. 2. The facts of the case are that A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. The marriage of the deceased, Smt.Makam Vasantha @ Swathi, who is the daughter of PWs 2 and 3 was performed with A- 1 on 12-5-1994 in which PWs 2 and 3 presented Rs.55,000/- net cash, ½ tula gold and household articles to A-1. About six months later, A-1 started demanding the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- from PWs 2 and 3. When they expressed their inability, A-1 and A-2 started harassing the deceased and A-1 used tobeat her on occasion, which she informed to her parents PWs 2 and 3. Unable to bear with the harassment, the deceased consumed insecticide poison on 28-03-1996 and committed suicide. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Government Community Hospital, Kalwakurthy where PW-1 the Medical Officer at about 7 p.m. found her as brought dead and sent medico legal intimation Ex.P1 to the police of Kalwakurthy where PW-12 was present. On the basis of Ex.P1, PW-12 registered a case under section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued FIR Ex.P9. Since the death of the deceased was within seven years of her marriage, on his requisition, PW-15 the Mandal Revenue Officer held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators PWs 8 to 10 covered by inquest report Ex.P6. PWs 8 to 10 merely admitted their signatures on the inquest report turned hostile and denied the rest. The Sub-Inspector of Police PW-13 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and in the presence of PWs 9 and 11, conducted scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P8. PWs 9 and 11 merely admitted their signatures on the panchanama turned hostile and denied the rest. Then he altered the section of law vide alteration memo Ex.P10 from section 174 Cr.P.C. to section 306 and 498-A IPC. He arrested A-1 and A-2 on 03-4-1996 and secured their judicial remand. A-3 obtained anticipatory bail. On his requisition, the Medical Officer PW-1 along with another doctor, as a team conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 12-5-1994 at 02:00 p.m. found no external injuries, preserved viscera and sent it to the laboratory. The laboratory report is Ex.P2. He issued autopsy report Ex.P3. Basing on the report of the laboratory report Ex.P2, he gave final opinion Ex.P4 giving the cause of death as due to organo phosphate, an insecticide poison. The medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution case to the effect that the deceased died due to consumption of organo phosphate, an insecticide poison. Thereafter, PW-14 the SI of Police filed the charge sheet showing A-3 as absconding. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy on receipt of charge sheet assigned PRC.No.34 of 1996 on his file and complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the same to the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Mahbubnagar under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. and under section 209 (c) Cr.P.C. submitted the record of the case and thereafter under section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. notified the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of PRC.No. 34 of 1996to the Court of Session. 4. On receipt of records in PRC.No. 34 of 1996, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, made over the same to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar by assigning SC.No. 232 of 1997. 5. On appearance of the accused, the learned Assistant Sessions examined them under section 228 Cr.P.C. alleging the substance of accusation. All the accused denied the same. Charge under section 498-A and 306 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them. They all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses; PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of the accused no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. All the accused denied the same stating that as they did not concede to the demand of deceased to set up family by herself and A-1 at Hyderabad, as they have got agriculture and business at their village and though they did not harass the deceased at any time, when the deceased committed suicide they were falsely implicated and though they have stated that they have defence but they have given up the same and arguments were heard. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned trial Judge found A-1 and A-2 guilty for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced them for the said offences as stated hereinabove and acquitted A-3 for the said offences. 9. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 filed Crl.A.No. 34 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubanagar. 10. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides, the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, confirmed the conviction of A-1 and A-2 and modified the sentence on charge under section 306 IPC and reduced to one year Rigorous Imprisonment while maintaining the fine. 11. Challenging the same, A-1 and A-2 filed the present criminal revision case. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 13. Among the witnesses PWs 1 and 2, who are father and mother of the deceased deposed before the court categorically that the petitioners demanding a sum of Rs.10,000-00 with an intention to start a new business. But A-1 refused and he arranged for the second marriage. Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, no other witnesses to corroborate regarding the demand of dowry. Even admitting the fact that the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is not in the nature of dowry, it is well settled by the Apex Court that any demand of money for domestic purpose or for starting business will not come under the purview of demand of dowry. Further it is seen from the record regarding the demand of Rs.10,000/- was not informed to the Investigating Officer at the time of examination under section 161 Cr.P.C. Further more even PWs 1 and 2 have not stated anything regarding the harassment or cruelty meted out by the deceased in the hands of the petitioners herein. Apart from the entire reading of the judgment and also the evidence placed on record, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioners herein have noticed that the deceased committed suicide to attract the offence under section 306 IPC. In the absence of any evidence, regarding the demand of dowry and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry and inducement to commit suicide the offences under section 306 and 498-A IPC is not attracted. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Therefore, the conviction cannot be safely given to the petitioners. Hence, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar be and is hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted for the said charges. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar be and is hereby set aside. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 07-12-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1068 OF 2004 Circulation No.69 Date:07-12-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43