CHILIKURI MARIYADAS Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Ss. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment dtd. 21/12/2010 in Crl.A.No.29 of 2009 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C) Krishna, Machilipatnam, confirming the judgment dtd. 9/3/2009 in S.C.No.300 of 2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama finding the revisionists guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the I.P.C') and convicted the revisionists under Sec. 235 (2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 (Rupees Five Hundred Only) each and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the judgments of the learned Courts below are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; the learned Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners merely based on Ex.P8 dying declaration without any support from independent sources; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that there is no investigation or either direct or indirect participation of the petitioners for the alleged abetting of the offence of suicide within the contemplation of Sec. 306 of 'the I.P.C'; the Courts below ought to have seen that non-examination of the doctor who attended the deceased was fatal to the prosecution case inasmuch as there was no evidence to show about the mental condition of the deceased enabling her to make a statement as to the offence; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that as the post-mortem discloses that the deceased sustained 100% burn injuries that it is impossible or highly improbable to make a statement under Ex.A8; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that P.Ws.1 to 4, who are direct eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and this itself creates any amount of doubt on the case of the prosecution; the learned Courts below ought to have seen that there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 as to the recording of the statement of the deceased by the P.W.9; and that eventually, requested to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned Appellate and Trial Courts.