THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.966 OF 2017

ORDER

The State has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated 26.05.2014 wherein Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity).

2. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of deceased (daughter of the defacto-complainant/PW2) was solemnized with accused No.1 about four months prior to the date of incident. Accused No.2 is the mother of deceased. After marriage, the deceased and accused No.1 lived happily for a period of one month. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity. Aggrieved by the same, the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment. Soon after receiving the information, Crime No.55 of

2012 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC.

3. Heard Sri M.Vivekandanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In spite of service of notice the respondents/accused have not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any other option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Assistant Sessions Judge without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused. He further submitted that the prosecution discharged their initial burden by proving the offences against the respondents by examining PW1 and PW5 and exhibits P1 to P5. However, learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the respondents only on the ground that the statement given by the deceased/victim in exhibit P2 dying declaration is contrary to the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station and the same is contrary to law and liable to be set aside and respondents/accused are liable for conviction.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Court, it reveals that the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment. Soon after receiving the information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station, registered Crime No.55 of 2012 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate recorded the statement of victim on 23.03.2012 itself. In her declaration, the victim stated that her husband alone is responsible for committing suicide. Thereafter, on 24.03.2012 Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station recorded the statement of victim. In the said statement she stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for her suicidal death. However, the prosecution failed to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station. The record further reveals that as per the entry in the inquest report, prosecution has not taken any steps for examining the said Sub-Inspector of Police to prove the case. The impugned judgment further reveals that PW2 who is the mother of deceased/victim in her complaint stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed her daughter mentally and physically suspecting that the deceased/victim is having illegal intimacy with her own father-in-law and after death of father-in-law, she is having illegal intimacy with her brother-in-law. Due to the said harassment only, the deceased committed suicide. However, the PW2 turned hostile. Prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by producing necessary evidence that the respon