P SANTHAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against judgment dated 02.11.2001 in Criminal Appeal No.175 of 1999 on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the conviction and sentence of R.I. for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1,000=00 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, in S.C.No.112 of 1998 on his file.

(2.) The deceased - Prameela is the wife of the revision petitioner - accused. Their marriage took place about 12 years prior to the present date of offence. It appears to be a love marriage between accused and the deceased. On 17.5.1997 there was altercation and exchange of words between the deceased and the accused in their residence.It appears that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased. He did not do any further act thereafter. However, even according to the version of the deceased herself she set fire to her after her husband poured kerosene and later died due to burn injuries sustained by her. A case was registered on the basis of dying declaration given by the deceased in the hospital. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused. It was committed to Assistant Sessions Judge for trial. The learned trial Judge framed two charges under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C., against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the respective charges against him. The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. On a consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. He acquitted the accused of the said charge.The learned trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution, found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C.Aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred an appeal in Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred the present revision.

(3.) The sister and other close relations of the deceased were examined by the prosecution. They did not support the version of the prosecution. They stated clearly that the accused was not treating cruelly the deceased. The learned trial Judge relied upon the dying declaration Ex.P.6 recorded by the Magistrate P.W.7. In Ex.P.6 it is stated that on the morning of 17.5.1997 accused after attending a marriage returned to the house at about 2.30 p.m. in a drunken state and then abused the deceased saying that she had taken away money in his shirt pocket without telling him. She also stated further in her statement that thereafter the accused left the house and returned to the house at about 8.30 p.m. She stated that the accused beat her. Thereafter she stated that while she was standing outside her house, the accused brought a Can containing kerosene and poured kerosene on her. She further stated that she started to go to Police Station to give a complaint. At some distance one Devadass met her and brought her back to the house saying that he would accost the accused. She also further stated that on seeing her, her husband - accused asked her why she came back without going to the Police Station and giving a complaint. She further stated that she got disgusted and set fire to herself. She also stated that the persons present there put down the fire and took her and admitted her in the hospital. According to the learned trial Judge this statement of the deceased proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.