KAMALA BAI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the I Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dated 11-11-2002 in S.C.No. 489 of 2001. The appellants are A-1 and A-2. They were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the above charges examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and M.Os. 1 to 3. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but Ex. D-1 -relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 1 was marked. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence found both the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, convicted each of them and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sessions Court directed both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.

(2.) The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants is briefly as follows: The deceased Santoshi was married to the son of A-1 by name Narsing Rao about six months prior to the date of occurrence. The offence took place during the intervening night of 18/19-9-2000 at about 3 a.m. A-1 being the mother-in-law and A-2 being the sister-in-law of the deceased used to harass her for bringing additional dowry. During the fateful night both the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire to her at her residence, which resulted in severe burns to the deceased. She was admitted in Osmania General Hospital for treatment and two dying declarations covered by Exs. P-5 and P-8 were recorded from the deceased. The deceased while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the burns at about 3.45 p.m. on 19-9-2000. The police registered a crime for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC and after conclusion of the investigation laid the charge-sheet.

(3.) The prosecution contended that both the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. The accused generally denied the offence and did not take any specific defence.