C NEHRU BABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 28-12-1995 made in SC No.123/1995 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, convicting him under Section 306 Indian Panel Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Laxmi Kanthamma aged 22 years originally a native of Kothamarrimakulapalle H/o Palamanda was given in marriage to the accused 2 years prior to the date of the incident i.e., 1-9-1993 and the deceased and the accused both lived amicably for sometime. 3 months prior to 1-9-1993 the accused has taken a rented house in the upstairs in Door No.19-7-90/H of Yellappareddy quarters, Rayalacheruvu Road, Tirupathi, belonging to de facto complainant (PW1). It is further alleged that the accused was pestering her humiliating her for issueless. On 31-8-1993 morning the accused went to his native place of D. Venganapalle near Chittoor along with the deceased. On 1-9-1993 at about 9-00 a.m. in the rear portion of the 1st floor of the house bearing D.No.l9-7-90/H, Yellappa Reddy Quarters the deceased - Laxmi Kanthamma has committed suicide by pouring kerosent and set her ablaze .and on witnessing the smoke the owner of the house and others entered into the house and took the deceased to the hospital and while undergoing treatment dying declaration was recorded by III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi in the presence of the duty Doctor in which she stated that in the early hours of Tuesday her husband dragged and kicked her by uttering "Neevu Samsarniki Panikiravu" as she has no issues so she poured kerosene on herself and set her ablaze. The owner of the house gave a complaint (Ex.P1). Inquest was held over the dead body and thereafter the dead body was sent tor post-mortem. Thereafter, the case was interrogated and charge- sheet has been filed against the accused stating that the deceased committed suicide on 1-9-1993 in the rear portion of the 1st floor of Door No19-7-90/H, Yellappareddy quarters, Rayalacheruvu Road, Tirupathi. As the accused was pestering and humiliating her as issueless, and therefore, she has committed suicide and therefore the accused is punishable under Section 306 IPC. The accused denied the same. The owner of the house is examined as PW1 and neighbour of her house is examined as PW2. They have stated that they took the deceased from the room and laid on the pial and got her admitted in the hospital for treatment and they do not know the reason for committing suicide. PW3 is the father of the deceased stated that the marriage of the deceased with the accused took place 21/2 years ago and the accused informed him on 1-9-1993 at about 3-00 p.m. stating that the deceased went away somewhere without informing him and immediately 5 minutes thereafter the elder brother of his son-in-law informed him that the deceased was inflicted with burns at Tirupathi and she was taken to the hospital and thereafter the parents of the deceased rushed to the hospital. They reached the hospital by 6.00 p.m. by that time the inquest report and post-mortem was over. But in the cross-examination, he has stated that the marriage was performed 3 months prior to the incident only and she made an attempt previously to commit suicide when someone beat her and during her childhood also she had made an attempt to commit suicide. PW4 is the witness for the inquest report. He turned hostile. PW5 is the doctor who conducted the post- mortem on the dead body and in whose presence the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration. PW6 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. PW8 is the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P12) in the presence of the doctor whose signature is marked as Ex.P13 and P14. PW9 is the Head Constable who registered the case immediately and who has recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.PC.

(3.) After completion of the prosecution evidence, on the basis of the incriminating evidence available against the accused, he was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused denied all those circumstances and got examined 2 witnesses DWs.l and 2 and got marked Ex.Bl, DW1 is the father of the accused. DW2 is a retired teacher stated that the deceased died 3 months after the marriage. It appears that the accused adduced evidence to disprove the allegation that the question of harassing the deceased for not having the children does not arise within three months from the date of the marriage.