KAKUMANU JAYAPRASADA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri E. Ella Reddy, the Counsel representing appellant-A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant-A1 preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 14.10 1998, in Sessions Case No. 576 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. A-1 is the son, A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1 and A-2 and A-3 were charged with Section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC, and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 14, Exs.P.1 to P.12. and Exs : D-1 and D-2, came to the conclusion that A2 and A3 are not guilty of any of the charges charged with and A-1 was found not guilty for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, but however, A-1 was found guilty for an offence under Section 498-A IPC, and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge convicted A-1 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri E. Ella Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-accused in all fairness would submit that the evidence on record at the best would go to show that this unfortunate son-in-law of P.W.1 was under some financial strain because of business problems and except that, nothing more was established by the prosecution. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge and would contend that the learned Judge, having disbelieved the very prosecution version that A-2 and A-3 had also participated in the incident on the fateful day, definitely had erred in believing the other portion of the version and convicting A-1. The learned Counsel would submit that as far as the acquittal recorded under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the same had attained finality. The learned Counsel had also pointed out the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to Ex.P.2 and would submit that the learned Judge, having observed that the prosecution failed to establish Ex.P 2 to be in the hand writing of the deceased, definitely erred in convicting the appellant-accused under Section 498-A IPC only on the ground that some demand for money was made and some demand for getting a settlement in the name of the deceased had been made by him. Even otherwise the evidence available on record, is more in the nature of hear-say in this regard and especially, in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, disbelieving the prosecution version relating to participation of A-2 and A-3, and also disbelieving Ex.P.2 on the other scant evidence available, convicting A1 under Section 498-A IPC definitely cannot be sustained.