YADLAPATI KUTUMBARAO Vs. STATE OF A P REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1997 on the file of Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., imposed in S.C.No.122 of 1995 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, and reducing the sentence alone and imposing the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250=00 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

(2.) Yadlapati Satyavathi (deceased) is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Deceased and accused had two children. The deceased was pregnant with a third baby in her womb. She was in an advanced stage of pregnancy on 27.5.1994. She poured kerosene on her body at about 5.00 a.m. on that day and set fire to herself in the residence of her husband - accused. She sustained extensive burn injuries. Accused put off the flames. With the help of others, he moved the deceased to the hospital for treatment. She died in the hospital on the same day at about 1.50 p.m. While she was undergoing treatment for her burn injuries, after receiving medical intimation from the hospital, the Sub Inspector reached the hospital and recorded her statement Ex.P.13 at about 8.15 a.m., in the presence of the Medical Officer treating the deceased. The Sub Inspector registered F.I.R., Ex.P.15 on the basis of Ex.P.13 statement of the deceased. The Mandal Revenue Officer P.W.9 received similar medical intimation from the hospital. He proceeded to the hospital and in the presence of Medical Officer recorded a statement Ex.P.8 of the deceased from 8.30 a.m., to 9.00 a.m., on the same day. Medical Officer certified that at the time of giving the two statements Exs.P.8 and P.13, the deceased was conscious and in a fit condition to give the statements. Later P.W.9 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. According to the prosecution the accused during the third pregnancy of his wife suspected her fidelity and began to ill-treat his wife saying that she did not become pregnant through him and she was having affairs with some others. On 25.5.1994 also the accused beat her suspecting her fidelity. The deceased informed senior paternal uncle of accused about the misconduct of her husband. He promised her that he would look into the matter and settle the dispute. On 26.5.1994 the deceased due to humiliation did not take her meal. During that night, accused enquired her whether she had taken food or not. She informed her husband that she does not want to take meals. Then the accused told her that it is immaterial for him whether she takes food or not and whether she is alive or dead. Due to the constant harassment and ill-treatment by her husband, the deceased decided to die and thereafter poured kerosene and set fire to herself. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The trial Judge placing strong reliance on the two dying declarations Exs.P.13 and P.8 and also the evidence of mother and other relations of the deceased, held that the accused is responsible for the suicide of his wife and he committed offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. The trial Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.250=00 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge at Eluru. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of evidence available on record confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. He reduced the sentence of imprisonment alone from 7 years to 4 years. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Sessions Judge, the accused preferred the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused contended that mensrea is an important ingredient for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., and there is no evidence to accept that the accused abetted or incited the deceased to commit suicide. He also contended that the evidence of the relations of the deceased is interested testimony and cannot be accepted.