VEERLA VENKATESWERAB RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 55 of 1995 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 15-10-1998.

(2.) The accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and in addition to it, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment tor a period of one year. The S.I of police, Thotlavalluru police Station, filed charge sheet against appellants/A-1 and A-2 alleging that due to the harassment caused by the appellants Padma Kumari-the second wife of first accused committed suicide by burning herself on 3-5-1995 at 9 p.m. The learned V. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered the same as PRC No. 11/94 and the same was committed to the Court of Session at the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the same was transferred to Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada and the learned judge recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.11 and also M. Os1 to 3 and convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to supra.

(3.) Sri Pradumna Kumar Reddy the learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the very cause of death had not been established and hence it is futile on the part of the prosecution to contend that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC had been established. The learned counsel also would contend that Ex. P-8 the post mortem certificate was not marked through any witness and how this document was brought on record is to be explained by the prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that the same was not marked though the investigating officer, but simply the investigating officer deposed about the post mortem report and nothing more. The doctor who issued the post mortem certificate or at least some other doctor acquainted with the signature had not been examined and hence the very cause of death had not been established by the prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that P.W.4 and P.W.5 were declared hostile and the evidence of P. W.3 the mother of the deceased alone is available on record and apart from this aspect of the matter, even if Ex.P-5 is carefully scrutinized, there is nothing to suggest that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC had been attracted and this is the statement of dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Head constable-P.W.10. The learned counsel also would point out that the very framing of the charge that "A1 having married the said Veerla Padma Kumari suppressing the fact that A.1 already was married to A-2" itself is a defective charge since it is contrary to the very version of the prosecution. The learned counsel would conclude that on the strength of such evidence, the convition recorded and the sentence imposed definitely cannot be sustained.