PEDDY SATYAAARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2-2-1987 at 3 PM the wife of the accused by name Peddi Venkatanarasamma (here in after referred to as the deceased) who was aged about 16 years poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her clothes in order to commit suicide. Thereafter she ran to the house of her neighbour, P.W.1, Sakinala Satyanarayana where the fire was extinguished. After she was taken to government hospital, Eluru for treatment she gave Ex. P 2 dying declaration to the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Eluru.

(2.) The accused who is tke husband of the deceased was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under section 306 I P C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem holding that there is no sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the suicide committed by, the deceased is a result of the abetment or with the assistance of the accused, held that the charge under section 306 IPC., is not made out. However mainly relying upon Ex. P2, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that the accused who is the husband harassed his wife in such a way that it led her to commit suicide. He accordingly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I P. C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default suffer simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru, confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(3.) The accused preferred this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence on two grounds. The first ground urged by him is that the charge framed against the accused is only under section 306 I P C, that no charge was framed against the accused umder section 498-A I P C, and that convicting the accused without a specific charge framed against him for the offence under section 498-A I P C, is illegal. But, as rightly submitted by tht learned public prosecutor, sections 306 and 49S-A I P C, belong to the same group of offences, out of which the offence under section 306 I P C, is grave in nature. When the charge is framed for a graver offence and whea the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused under that graver offence, it is open to the court to base conviction on the evidence let in by the prosecution if the ingredients of a lesser offence are made out. I, therefore hold that the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 498-A I P C cannot be held to be illegal for the reason that no specific charge is framed against him for the offeaee under Sec. 498-A I P C.