Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Lanka Mariya Dasu & S/o Chinnabbai and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd., rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 789 of 2010
Decided On : 19-12-2023
Cruelty - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A r/w 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the prosecution of A.1 to A.3 for subjecting the deceased to cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was allegedly harassed for additional dowry and ultimately set herself ablaze, leading to her death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found A.1 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, while A.2 and A.3 were acquitted due to lack of consistent evidence against them.
Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution proved that A.1 to A.3 subjected the deceased to cruelty as alleged and whether the judgment was sustainable under law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, Ex.P.8, to establish the cruelty inflicted by A.1. The court found the evidence consistent and held that A.1's conduct fell under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed for A.2 and A.3, setting aside their conviction and sentence, while the appeal for A.1 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him.
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is by the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 to the judgment, dated 23.06.2010 in Sessions Case No.769 of 2009, on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found A.1 to A.3 not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short), but found them guilty of the charge under Section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C., convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 18 months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks each.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.769 of 2009 arose out of a committal order passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli in P.R.C.No.67 of 2009, pertaining to Crime No.118 of 2008 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station.
4. The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sattenappli, filed charge sheet in Crime No.118 of 2008 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, alleging in substance that L.W.1-Mekala Kannamma is the mother of one Lanka Siromani (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”). L.W.2-Chedapongu Sarojini is grandmother of deceased. L.W.3-Chedapongu David is son of L.W.2. The deceased is native of Mannesultanpalem Village of Bellamkonda Mandal. Her marriage was performed with A.1 of Komerapudi Village of Sattenapalli Mandal four years ago as per the caste customs. For one year their matrimonial life runs away happily. A.2 and A.3 who are in-laws of the deceased used to carry back-bits to their son A.1, where A.1 suspected her fidelity and harassed her physically and mentally. They continued the harassment over the deceased for additional dowry since the marriage. It was informed to her parents. On 30.10.2008 morning at 8-00 a.m., L.W.8-Devarakonda Kondamma called the deceased for coolie works. Then she went to the house of L.W.7-Lanka Yesobu for veiling tuft through L.W.10-Lanka Rebaka. After few minutes, A.2 followed the deceased and abused her indiscriminately. Then she returned to her house where A.1 to A.3 beat her indiscriminately and demanded for additional dowry. Due to unbearable harassment of the accused, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. Then the flames blow up where the deceased raised cries. On hearing the cries, A.1 and L.W.6-Bandla Rayelu rushed and rescued the deceased and shifted her to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli for treatment. Then she was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur. Basing on the statement of the deceased, L.W.23-Head Constable, visited the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli and recorded her statement from 11-15 a.m. to 11-45 a.m. on 30.12.2008 and registered it as a case in F.I.R.No.118 of 2008 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station and took up investigation. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, seized kerosene tin having little of kerosene and drafted observation report. He examined as many as 10 witnesses. During the course of investigation, L.W.24-Assistat Sub-Inspector arrested A.1 to A.3 on 25.11.2008 at 11-45 a.m. at Kantepudi Cross Road and sent them for judicial custody. L.W.25-Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence and examined relevant witnesses. While undergoing treatment on 28.11.2008 at 8-00 a.m., the victim succumbed to burn injuries at Government General Hospital, Guntur. Then L.W.25 altered the Section of law from 498-A of IPC to 304-B of IPC on 28.11.2008 and drafted fresh FIR. L.W.20-The Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He forwarded the dead bo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cruelty' under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the reliance on consistent evidence and dying declaration....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused to commit cruelty or abet suicide, and the evidence presented must be specific and cre....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's behavior, amounting to cruelty against the victim, leading to suicide, constitutes the offense under Section 498(A) of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC, it must be established that cruelty or harassment to the wife was to force her to cause grave b....
The court held that mere admonishment and lack of credible evidence regarding dowry demand do not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for direct evidence of cruelty and harassment, and the need to scrutinize witness evidence, especially when there are contradiction....
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
