JUDGMENT :

The judgment, dated 09.03.2010, in Sessions Case No.53 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant.

2. Originally, the appellant herein faced charge in the aforesaid Sessions Case under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) in alternative under Section 304-B IPC, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after completion of trial, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304(Part-II) IPC i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC or alternatively Section 304-B IPC and accordingly convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four (4) years.

3. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused therein filed the present Criminal Appeal.

4. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

5. The Sessions Case No.53 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry arose out of committal order in PRC No.10 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.55 of 2007 of Kadiyam Police Station.

6. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Rural filed charge sheet in the aforesaid Crime alleging the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet, is as follows:

(i) The accused is resident of Muramanda Village and Kadiyam Mandal. He is a lorry driver by profession. Thota Dhanalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), aged about 28 years, is the wife of the accused. The deceased is the daughter of the de-facto complainant namely Sana Satyanarayana (LW.1), who is also a lorry driver. Sana Sankaramma i.e., LW.2 is the wife of de-facto complainant and mother of the deceased. Sana Sreenu (LW.3) and Sana Bhavani Sankar (LW.4) are the brothers of the deceased.

(ii) Five years prior to the date of occurrence i.e., on 16.03.2007 LW.1 performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused. At the time of marriage, he paid Rs.40,000/- towards dowry to the accused and also presented traditional and customary presentations. Out of the wedlock, the deceased and the accused were blessed with two children. The accused is habituated to drinking and spending money lavishly. He was also harassing and beating the deceased whenever she questioned about his behavior. About eight months ago, accused purchased a lorry borrowing amount from one finance company. At the time of the said transaction, the de-facto complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to the accused on his request. Accused used to go on the lorry and return to his house irregularly in a drunken state. Whenever the accused comes in drunken state, he used to abuse the deceased and assault her. The deceased, unable to bear the harassment and ill-treatment of accused, on one occasion, made an attempt to commit suicide. Accused used to demand the deceased to divorce him. The deceased brought the facts to the notice of her father and her father brought the facts to the notice of elders namely Bhogireddi Suribabu (LW.6), Namala Rama Sankaram (LW.14), Gunnam Veerraju (LW.15), Chunduri Venkateswara Rao (LW.16) and Vattikuti Janakiramayya (LW.17). During enquiry by the elders, accused raised counter allegations stating that the deceased used to defy and retaliate him and that she should change her behaviour. However, they advised the accused to change his behavior towards the deceased and also advised the deceased to be cordial towards her husband.