KOLLIPAKA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of an young lady about 21 years old who, within two years of her marriage, died. The death is suicidal in nature and it has been established by the medical evidence also. Charges were framed under Section 306 and 498 -A.IPC A-1 to A-7 were faced with trial. To prove the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined and documents, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked . The learned Addisional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has got the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and who has got an opportunity to read to the contents of the documents, came to the conclusion that A-l alone can be convicted and the rest of the persons can be acquitted. Accordingly, A-l was found guilty of the offence under Section 498-AIPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer SI for 20 days and to undergo RI for a period of four years and shall also to pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in default to suffer SI for one month for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is against that an appeal has been filed. The appellate Court also duly taking into consideration the introduction of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and drawing a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband in case of dowry deaths and also taking into account the evidence of P.Ws, 5 to 7 in particular, with reference to Ex-1, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the harassment resulted in the hands of her husband and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1. It is against that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) Powers under revision to be exercised by this Courtin case of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts, is very limited.

(3.) Sri M.S. Rajalingam, the learned Counsel for the accused stated that both the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in holding that the alleged suicide having been committed within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage is a reasonable ground to presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband. Except a bald statement that all the circumstances of the case go to prove the abetment there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the incident of suicide and its abetment. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused A-1. The Court has to assess the evidence and remove chaff from the grain and has to come to the conclusion whether all or any one of them has committed the offence or not. The very fact that he gave benefit of doubt on the same evidence by acquitting A-2 to A-7 itself is an indication that he has applied his mind and probed further and arrived at the conclusion that A-l is the person responsible for causing the death of the deceased. When detailed investigation has been made and the Court has applied its mind and gave benefit of doubt to A-2 to A-7, it cannot be said that A-l also is entitled for the benefit of doubt as was given by the trial Court to A-2 to A-7.