G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the I Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad dated 11-11-2002 in s. C. No. 489 of 2001. The appellants are a-1 and A-2. They were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the above charges examined P. Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and m. Os. 1 to 3. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but Ex. D-1 -relevant portion of Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 1 was marked. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence found both the accused guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC, convicted each of them and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sessions Court directed both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of the sessions Court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows: the deceased Santoshi was married to the son of A-1 by name Narsing Rao about six months prior to the date of occurrence. The offence took place during the intervening night of 18/19-9-2000 at about 3 a. m. A-1 being the mother-in-law and A-2 being the sister-in-law of the deceased used to harass her for bringing additional dowry. During the fateful night both the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her at her residence, which resulted in severe burns to the deceased. She was admitted in osmania General Hospital for treatment and two dying declarations covered by Exs. P-5 and P-8 were recorded from the deceased. The deceased while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the burns at about 3. 45 p. m. on 19-9-2000. The police registered a crime for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC and after conclusion of the investigation laid the charge-sheet.

( 3 ) THE prosecution contended that both the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. The accused generally denied the offence and did not take any specific defence.

( 4 ) THE point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court against the appellants are liable to be set aside? point:

( 5 ) ACRIMEWAS registered by the concerned police on the basis of a statement given by the deceased at about 7. 45 a. m. on 19-9-2000. The offence took place at about 3 a. m. on 19-9-2000 at the house of the deceased. Ex. P-5 is the statement recorded by the Assistant Sub-lnspector of Kulsumpura p. S. , Hyderabad, on the basis of which a crime was registered. On the same day p. W. 8, the then VI Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex. P-8) between 10. 25 a. m. to 10. 40 a. m. In the said statement the deceased stated that A-1 poured kerosene and set fire to her.

( 6 ) IN addition to Exs. P-5 and P-8- statements of the deceased, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 12. P. W. 1 is the mother of the deceased who is a native of Nuthujapur. She stated that at the time of marriage they gave 12 tulas of gold, 10 tulas of silver and other household articles worth Rs. 50,000/ -. After the marriage the deceased was sent to Hyderabad to her in- laws house for marital life. The deceased, her husband and A-1 used to reside in one house. A-2 was also staying by the side of the house of A-1. She further stated that sometime after the marriage, her husband fell ill. When she informed the deceased and her husband, they came along with A-2 to their house. Subsequently her husband died. After completion of the ceremonies the deceased informed herthat A-1 and A-2 were harassing to bring Rs. 50,000/- for business pur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document