THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.432 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2010 in S.C.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal, (for short, “the trial Court”) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between accused No.1 and Jayasree was performed at the house of accused No.1 i.e., Mulamalla Village. After marriage both of them lived happily for few months at Atmakur. Later, accused started harassing Jayasree demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- for motor cycle and there upon LW1 Telugu Narsimha adjusted the amount and sent his daughter to the house of accused; that at the time of the incident Jayasree was carrying seventh month pregnancy and undergoing treatment. On 27.09.2007 at 08:00 P.M., Jayasree, unable to bear the harassment of accused, poured kerosene on herself and set fire. It is stated that accused No.1 and others poured water on Jayasree, extinguished flames and moved her to Government Hospital, Atmakur and from there to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. It is stated that on 27.09.2007, Tahsildar, Atmakur recorded the dying declaration of Jayasree and on 28.09.2007, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool also recorded the dying declaration of Jayasree. On the complaint of LW1 dated 29.09.2007 a case in Crime No.95 of 2007 was registered against the accused. Upon completion of investigation, S.D.P.O., Gadwal laid charge sheet against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. The learned Magistrate after supplying the prosecution documents to the accused and having satisfied that the offence brought out against the accused is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar committed this case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar under Section

209-A of Cr.P.C.

4. The Court of Sessions Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence and made over to the trial Court for trial and disposal. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.03.2010 in S.C.No.194 of 2008 found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted as here under:-

“In the result, A1-Dandu Kurumurthy and A2-Smt Dandu Lingamma are convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven years each for the offence punishable U/s.304-B IPC. The accused 1 and 2 further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each for the offence punishable u/s.4 of D.P.Act and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of one month each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.”

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 19 and Exs.P1 to P23 in proper perspective and erred in convicting the appellants. He submits that the evidence of PWs.1 and 6/ parents of the deceased, suffers from material omissions and contradictions. PWs.2 to 5 and 7 to 10 are independent witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The first dying declaration recorded by PW13/Tahsildar and the second dying declaration recorded by PW16/Magistrate are contrary to each other and that the trial Court erred in convicting the accused basing on the dying declaration recorded by Magistrate. Stating thus, he seeks to allow the Appeal.

6. Learned Assistant Pu