PENCHALA SADAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-accused filed the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence in SC 6 of 1996 on the file of the II Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in convicting the appellants-accused and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for seven years each for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to suffer S. I. for six months each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows; The marriage between the deceased Penchala Padma and Penchala Sadaiah was performed on 8-12-1993 at Godavarikhani and at the time of the marriage, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in cash and other household articles were given towards dowry and the marriage was performed. Subsequently, at the instigation of his parents, who are A2 and A3, the first accused harassed the deceased to bring some more money for purchase of Colour Television and Almirah which led the deceased to commit suicide on 1-8-1994. It is further alleged that the accused killed the deceased by squeezing her neck and poured poison into her mouth. On behalf of the prosecution PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Ex. P1 to P7 were marked. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced.

(3.) Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants-accused filed the appeal contending that the judgment of conviction and sentence of the lower Court is contrary to law and probabilities of case. The trial Court committed error in believing the story of the prosecution and erred in holding that the appellants are guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to produce the alleged letters written by the deceased and the evidence of the prosecution witness is contradictory and not reliable. The lower Court ought to have seen that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The lower Court erred in believing the version of the prosecution witnesses drawing presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'). For the above said reasons, the judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside.