K VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Padmanabha Reddy, Senior Counsel representing the appellant-accused and Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) . The sole accused in Sessions Case No.369 of 1993 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on 10.7.1997, had preferred the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel Sri Padmanabha Reddy had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs.Dl to D3 and would contend that what had been recorded by the M.R.O at the time of the inquest, Exs.Dl and D2 and also Ex.D-3 letter of the deceased, would clearly go to show that the version of the prosecution definitely cannot be believed. The learned Counsel would submit that however, so far as it relates to the charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned, the appellant-accused was found not guilty by the learned Judge. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that P.W.I at the first instance had not deposed anything about the harassment, but after being recalled, no doubt, he added some improved versions and this may have to be viewed with suspicion. The learned Counsel also would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.l, 8 and also P.W.3, if carefully scrutinized, there is no legally acceptable evidence placed before the Court The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P-9 and would contend that the said complaint was made by the accused-K. Vijay Kumar only on what he came to know about the happening of the incident and hence, on the ground that some false version had been incorporated in Ex.P-9, the conviction cannot be recorded and hence, the conviction and the sentence are liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also had stressed the aspect that except the later improved version, at the earliest point of time or subsequent thereto, even at the time of the inquest, no harassment was spoken to and in this view of the matter, the appellant- accused definitely is entitled to the benefit of doubt.