Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO
Peddy Satyaaarayana - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.Labour - Respondent
Decided On : 08-20-91
Cruelty - Section 498-A IPC - [Section 498-A IPC] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 498-A IPC, which punishes the husband or his relatives for subjecting a woman to cruelty. The court analyzed the dying declaration and concluded that a single act of beating and abusing the deceased, without evidence of prior similar conduct, did not amount to wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The court held that the lower courts erred in convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The wife of the accused attempted suicide by setting fire to herself and later gave a dying declaration accusing the accused of harassing her. The accused was convicted under Section 498-A IPC based on the dying declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the single act of beating and abusing the deceased, without evidence of prior similar conduct, did not amount to wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The lower courts erred in convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the evidence, particularly the dying declaration, and whether the accused's conduct amounted to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a single act of beating and abusing the deceased, without evidence of prior similar conduct, did not amount to wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, and therefore, the accused could not be convicted under Section 498-A IPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused were set aside.
( 1 ) ON 2-2-1987 at 3 PM the wife of the accused by name Peddi Venkatanarasamma (here in after referred to as the deceased) who was aged about 16 years poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her clothes in order to commit suicide. Thereafter she ran to the house of her neighbour, P. W. 1, Sakinala satyanarayana where the fire was extinguished. After she was taken to government hospital, eluru for treatment she gave Ex. P 2 dying declaration to the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, eluru.
( 2 ) THE accused who is tke husband of the deceased was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under section 306 i P C. The learned Assistant Sessions judge, Tadepalligudem holding that there is no sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the suicide committed by, the deceased is a result of the abetment or with the assistance of the accused, held that the charge under section 306 ipc. , is not made out. However mainly relying upon Ex. P2, the learned assistant Sessions Judge held that the accused who is the husband harassed his wife in such a way that it led her to commit suicide. He accordingly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I P. C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default suffer simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, West godavari Division, Eluru, confirmed the conviction and sentence.
( 3 ) THE accused preferred this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence on two grounds. The first ground urged by him is that the charge framed against the accused is only under section 306 I P C, that no charge was framed against the accused umder section 498-A I P C, and that convicting the accused without a specific charge framed against him for the offence under section 498-A I P C, is illegal. But, as rightly submitted by tht learned public prosecutor, sections 306 and 49s-A I P C, belong to the same group of offences, out of which the offence under section 306 i P C, is grave in nature. When the charge is framed for a graver offence and whea the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused under that graver offence, it is open to the court to base conviction on the evidence let in by the prosecution if the ingredients of a lesser offence are made out. I, therefore hold that the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 498-A I P C cannot be held to be illegal for the reason that no specific charge is framed against him for the offeaee under Sec. 498-A I P C.
( 4 ) THE next ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that the entire prosecution evidence is true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 498-A i P C, are not made out. In support of that contention he relied upon the evidence of P Ws 1 to 3 who deposed that the deceased informed them that she caught fire when the was preparing tea. The learned trial judge observed that p. Ws 1 to 3 might have deposed like that on account of sympathy for the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence of p. W. 8 who stated that the deceased has given Ex. P6 statement to him wherein the stated that by accident her silk saree caught fire when she was preparing tea at about 2-30 P M. That statement which was recorded at 7 PM on 2-2-1987 is subsequent to the recording of dying declaration by the learned It Additional munsif Magistrate. Eluru (P W 4 ). It is quite that possible that the deceased was made to say like that under threat or inducement by the accosed.
( 5 ) THE next point, therefore, that remains for consideration is whether the recitals made in fix. P2 dying declaration, made by the deceased bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC. Section 49s-A j P C, renders the husband or the relati
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
