ALETI RATHNAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants-A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 667 of 2000 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal, aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the judgment dated 19-04-2001.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1 is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W. 6 is the mother of the deceased. A-1 is the son of A-2. The deceased is the 3rd daughter of P.W. 6. The deceased belonged to Telaga community, whereas the accused belongs to Madiga community. It is also the version of the prosecution that about six months prior to 28-11-1999, A-1 developed acquaintance with the deceased, and loved her, and on coming to know that, P. Ws. 1 and 6 warned A-1, and also informed the matter to A-2. A-2 requested P.Ws. 1 and 6 to celebrate the marriage of the deceased with her son A-1. But however, they refused. It is also the version of the prosecution that after four months, A-1 eloped with the deceased, promising to marry her at the instigation of A-2, and brought her to Thumurukota and lead conjugal life. Subsequent thereto, A-1 refused to marry the deceased, and A-1 and A-2 demanded the deceased to go away. Thus, A-1 and A-2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On 28-11-1999, both the accused quarreled with the deceased and went away, as a consequence of which, the deceased consumed insecticides poison. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-9, and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the appellants-A-1 and A-2 are guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentforten years, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for three months each. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred.

(3.) Sri K. Subbarao, Counsel representing the appellants would submit that even if the evidence available on record as such is taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not attracted. The learned Counsel also would submit that in fact, A-1 has been ready and willing to marry and a request also was made, but inasmuch as the parties belonged to different castes, the mother of the deceased was not willing party, and the evidence available on record, the evidence of P. W. 6 would clearly disclose the same. When that being so, the learned Counsel would submit that the version of the prosecution is that there was harassment and that the accused had driven away the deceased, refusing to marry, in consequences of which, she committed suicide, definitely, cannot be believed. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that the contents of Ex. P-8 also would throw some suspicion about the version of the prosecution.