PACHALA DURGA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No. 1 in S. C. No. 25 of 2004, on the file of the ii Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 314 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, for the offence under section 302 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence under section 314 of IPC, was also imposed, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A-2, the father of A-1, and A-3, the sister of A-1, were tried for offences under Sections 302, 314, read with 114 and 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, they were acquitted of the said offences. While the appellant (A-1) filed Crl. A. No. 802 of 2005, assailing the conviction and sentence awarded to him, the State filed Crl. A. No. 1057 of 2007, against the acquittal of A-2 and A-3.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case presented by the prosecution, before the trial court, is as under: a-1 to A-3 belong to Padmasali community. PW-1 who belongs to a different caste, had three sons, i. e. PWs-2, 3 and another, and a daughter, by name bhagyalaxmi. PW-2 was running a hotel and a pan shop. Bhagyalaxmi used to look after the pan shop. The appellant, who is a mechanic, used to frequently visit the pan shop, and thereby developed intimacy with Bhagyalaxmi. Both of them have eloped and came back after three days. The elders of the village kept the appellant and Bhagyalaxmi, in the house belonging to a barber, where they lived for about two months. Mean while, Bhagyalaxmi became pregnant, through the appellant. The elders and well-wishers insisted on performance of marriage, but the appellant was demanding the house owned by PW-1 to be given towards dowry, or an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. After deliberations and discussions, the marriage was performed in a temple at Gummalladoddi village, on PW. 1 expressing her willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -.

(3.) THE appellant got the pregnancy of Bhagyalaxmi aborted, prior to the marriage. PW. 1 took Bhagyalaxmi to her house at Gokavaram village, during ashadamasam, and by that time, Bhagyalaxmi was pregnant of two months. After that month, she was taken away by the appellant, to his residence. Bhagyalaxmi was complaining to PW-1 about the harassment by A-1 to A-3 and their insistence on abortion of the second pregnancy also. She was also made to fall in a bathroom, by applying oil on the floor. At a time, when the pregnancy was of six months, PW-1 took her initially to Korukonda, the residence of PW-2, and thereafter, to Gokavaram. None of A-1 to A-3, have visited Gokavaram for about 3 months to see Bhagyalaxmi.