PALADUGU DAVID RAJU Vs. MANDE RAJESH CHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today, when the matter is taken up, the counsel appearing on either side states that during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, respondent No.2 died and the revision was already dismissed as abated against respondent No.2 / A2. Therefore, the present proceedings are taken up only in so far as respondent No.1 / A1 is concerned.

(2.) Questioning the judgment on the acquittal passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, dtd. 13/11/2007 in S.C.No.382 of 2006, the de facto complainant-P.W.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 / A1 and A2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) under Sec. 304-B and alternatively under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

(3.) Substance of the charge is that on 23/2/2006, at about 06:00 p.m., A1 poured kerosene on his wife, by name Mande Bhagyalakshmi @ Marry (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and set fire on her, demanding additional dowry, thereby causing her death and committing an offence punishable under Sec. 304-B, alternatively under Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused by judgment dtd. 13/11/2007.