GADIRAJU RAMA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant no. 1 - Gadiraju Rama Raju is the husband of Gadiraju Sita Mani, who died an unnatural death on 5/3/1988. The marriage of the parties had been solemnized on 24/4/1985. Treating it as a case of dowry death the appellants along with two others were charged under section 304b read with section 34 and section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. Accused nos. 2 and 4 were acquitted of both the charges but the appellants were convicted by the trial court for the offences punishable under section 304b read with section 34 of indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They were also sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 498a of indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal the judgment of the trial court was modified and instead of section 304b of , the accused were held guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of besides for the offence punishable under section 498a of. Upon conviction under section 306 of the appellant no. 1 was sentenced to suffer RI for a period of four years and the appellant no. 2 was sentenced to suffer RI for a period of two years. Their conviction and sentences under section 498a of was confirmed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant wanted us to re-appreciate the whole evidence for the purposes of finding as to whether any offence has been committed by the appellants or not. We are not inclined to make such a venture in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below so far as the involvement of the appellant no. 1 is concerned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant no. 1, the husband of the deceased.

(3.) The learned counsel has, however, vehemently contended that there was nothing in evidence to connect the appellant no. 2, the mother-in-law of the deceased, with the commission of the crime. He has pointed out that no overt act was attributed to the said accused either for the purpose of attracting provisions of section 498a of indian Penal Code, 1860 or for her liability for abatement so far as commission of offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned. We find substance in his submissions. The courts below have not referred to any evidence which would show involvement of appellant no. 2 so far as the demand of dowry or harassment in consequence thereof or abetment to suicide is concerned.