DUDEKULA MUNTIMADUGU RAHIM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 28 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur dated 14-2-2000, whereby A-1 was found guilty for the charges under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisoment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- while acquitting the accused 2 and 3 for the charges under Section 498-A and 304-B and 201 IPC.

(2.) The facts that lead to filing of this appeal are as follows: The marriage of the deceased was performed with the first accused on 16-9-1996 and it is alleged that PW-1 gave Rs. 65,000/- and 12 tulas of gold to A-2. After the marriage for about three months both A-1 and the deceased lived happily and subsequent by a demand for additional dowry was made by all the accused. PW-1 paid Rs.50.000/- each on two occasions but in spite of paying Rs. 1,00,000/- on two different occasions the accused still demanded money. On 30-6-1997 P.W. 3 went to the house of PW-1 and informed that the deceased was not doing well. Therefore, both P.Ws.l and 2 went to the house of the accused and saw their daughter lying dead on a cot and immediately they went to police station and gave a complaint. On the complaint the police registered a case in Cr. No. 33 of 1997 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda registered a case in PRC No. 76 of 1997 and committed the same to the Sessions Division, Anantapur. The Mandal Revenue Officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was sent to the post mortem examination. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to suicide by hanging. After receipt of the report of the Forensic Laboratory and after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. On behalf of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked besides MOs 1 to 13. The lower court after considering the evidence on record found A-1 guilty under Section 306 IPC and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the first accused A-1 preferred the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased died as a result of suicide and having acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC should not have convicted him under Section 306 IPC taking aid of Section 113-A of Evidence Act inasmuch as "cruelty" in both the Sections is one and the same and therefore, he prays to acquit the accused No.1.