KEESARI MADHAV REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 339 of 2004 and 613 of 2006. They arise from the following facts:

(2.) The trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence held that the case against the accused had been proved beyond doubt and they were liable to conviction under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court observing that the conduct of A1 in particular, had been reprehensible awarded him a sentence of death under Section 302 of the IPC whereas accused Nos. A2 and A3 were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. All the accused were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the Sections under the other provisions under which they had been found guilty. Two criminal appeals were thereafter filed in the High Court; one appeal by A1 and the second by A2 and A3 whereas a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence was also made to the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the conviction of all the accused for the offence under Section 302 and 302/34 and they were acquitted of that charge and a sentence of ten years was imposed on A1 under Section 304B. The conviction of A1 under Section 498A was also upheld but no separate sentence was awarded. A2 and A3 were, however, ordered to be acquitted with respect to all charges. The judgment of the High Court has resulted in two appeals before this Court, one at the instance of A1 and the other by the State of A.P. impugning the acquittal of A2 and A3 and also praying that A1 was liable for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It will be seen that the High Court has not really disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 and the others or the evidence with regard to the demands of dowry made over a period of time and the harassment meted out to the deceased by A1 in particular. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on the aspect of dowry and harassment has been supported by the evidence of independent witnesses including those of the Panchayat and the mediators who had tried to sort out the differences between the deceased and her husband and in-laws. The High Court has, however, found that the dying declaration Exhibit P5 which had been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate was a suspicious document and could not be relied upon. It has been pointed out that in the oral dying declaration which the deceased had made to P. Ws. 1 to 5 when she was being taken to the hospital, the story was that kerosene oil had been poured on her by A3 in the presence of A2 and that A1 had thereupon lit the match and set her on fire but in the dying declaration which had been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Exhibit P5, there was no reference to the pouring of kerosene oil on her. The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that this apparent discrepancy went to the root of the matter, the more so as there was no smell of kerosene oil on the dead body and no receptacle which could have carried kerosene oil had been found when the police officer had examined the site of the incident. The High Court also observed that in Exhibit P7, that is the medico-legal examination of the deceased prior to her death, it had been noted that the injuries had been caused in an attempted suicide and the Court, accordingly, inferred that this information must have been given to the doctor either by the deceased herself or by her father who had reached the hospital in the meanwhile. The High Court also concluded that in the light of the fact that the First Information Report had been recorded about 17 hours after the death of the deceased, it appeared that there was some suspicion about the prosecution story. The High Court, accordingly, set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC recorded with respect to A1 and upheld his conviction under Section 304B of the IPC and awarded him a sentence of ten years with the other parts of the sentence being maintained as per the direction of the trial court. A2 and A3, however, were acquitted in toto.