P VASU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 and A-3 in Sessions Case No. 462 of 1996 on the file of Sessions Judge, Adilabad, aggrieved by the conviction imposed and sentence recorded by the judgment dated 20-08-1997 had preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) Sri Venu Gopal, the learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that A-2, the father of A-1 and husband of A-3 was acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. But, however, A-1 and A-3, though were acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned counsel would point out that P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased, P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. The learned counsel pointed out several contradictions and would submit that the alleged harassment as spoken by these witnesses will not attract the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Sessions Judge having recorded an acquittal as far as Section 304-B IPC is concerned, on the strength of the self same material, the learned Judge erred in convicting A-1 and A-3 only under Section 498-A IPC. The counsel also would submit that there is no legally acceptable evidence before the Court to convict these accused. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and also the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 4 surprisingly speaks about A-2 and also had pointed out to the evidence of P.W. 9, the investigating officer through whom the contradictions were well proved. The counsel would submit that A-2 had given the report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. the same was altered to Section 306 and 498-A IPC by filing alteration memo-Ex.P-6 and subsequent thereto, charges were framed under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. The learned counsel would submit that the very approach of the learned Sessions Judge is not in proper perspective and hence the appellants are entitled for acquittal.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 in particular, and also had pointed out the findings, which had been recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that it is a fit case, which would have resulted in the conviction under Section 304-B IPC itself. But, however, inasmuch as acquittal had been recorded at last, the learned Judge thought of imposing some punishment under Section 498-A IPC. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the other evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge.