DAMARLA REVATHI DEVI Vs. BHATTU SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioner namely Damarla Revathi Devi, wife of late Damarla Hema Raju, who was the prosecution witness No.1 in Sessions Case No.263 of 2003, on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur (for short, "the learned Additional Sessions Judge'), under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, "the Cr.P.C'), challenging the judgment of acquittal, dtd. 3/11/2004, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated all the accused of the charges under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC').

(2.) PW.1 in Sessions Case No.263 of 2003 is the mother of the deceased by name Bhattu Srivardhini. Her husband i.e., Damarla Hemaraju (LW.1) gave a statement under Ex.P-8 before the Police, which was recorded as FIR in Crime No.174 of 2000 of Mangalagiri Town Police Station, for the offences under Ss. 498-A and 306 R/w.34 of IPC and was investigated into. LW.1-de-facto complainant was not examined by the prosecution as he died. Respondent No.1 herein is no other than the husband (A-1), respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws (A-2 and A-3) and respondent No.4 is the sister-in-law (A-4) of the deceased respectively. The respondents herein were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charges under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of IPC and they were acquitted of the charges framed by virtue of the judgment in Sessions Case No.263 of 2003, dtd. 3/11/2004. The State of A.P. seems to have not preferred any Appeal against the acquittal, but PW.1, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant (died), preferred this Criminal Revision Case under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The brief facts, which are germane for the purpose of deciding this Criminal Revision Case, which can be culled out from Ex.P-8, dated 04/5/9/2000, statement of the de-facto complainant i.e., husband of PW.1, are as follows: He was living by selling stamps in Civil Courts, Vijayawada. He was blessed with four daughters and two sons. Her second daughter i.e., Srivardhini, was given in marriage to one Bhattu Srinivasa Rao (respondent No.1 herein), resident of Mangalagiri in the year 1996. At the time of marriage, he presented cash of Rs.65,000.00 towards dowry and Rs.25,000.00 towards other lanchanams. After marriage, he sent her daughter to her in-laws house and one year thereafter she gave birth to a male child. His son-in-law i.e., Srinivasa Rao (A-1) was addicted to consumption of alcohol and used to demand his daughter for money by beating her. A-1 used to send his wife i.e., Srivardhini to the house of her parents frequently. He complied the demands of his son-in-law. Her daughter i.e., Srivardhini came to him and told that her inlaws, sister-in-law and her husband are harassing her for getting money. On 4/9/2000 evening his daughter Srivardhini telephoned to his house and informed that she entertained a suspicion that she will be killed by her husband, in-laws and sister-in-law and her husband, for which his wife consoled her not to afraid and asked her to come to Vijayawada. After half an hour, they received a phone call that their daughter was burnt. Then his wife proceeded to Mangalagiri along with others and found her daughter in a precarious condition on the verge of death, as such she was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where they were informed that her daughter Srivardhini died. Then the dead body was shifted to her in-laws house. He came to know about all these facts through his wife and entertained a suspicion that the husband of the deceased, in-laws, sister-in-law and her husband poured kerosene and killed his daughter. Basing on the statement of LW.1, the Police registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2000, dtd. 5/9/2000, for the aforesaid offences. Ultimately, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer concerned, after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the respondents herein for the offences under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of IPC. Later, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Ss. 498-A and 304-B IPC against the respondents herein, for which they denied the offence.