C VEERUDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by both the accused in S C No. 756 of 87 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against their convictions under sections 498-A and 306 IPC, and sentences to suffer each of them rigorous imprisonment for a period of three .years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under sec; 306 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 498-A IPC.

(2.) The facts as spoken to by P Ws 1 and 2 in brief are A-2 is the mother of A-1. A-1 is the husband of one Bhagya Lakshmi (here inafter referred to as 'the deceased'). P W 2 is the so.a and the deceased is the daughter of P W K The marriage between the deceased and A-1 took place on 4-5-1984. On demand by A-2, P W 1 presented to A-1 at the time of the marriage12 tulas of gold, silver plate of 'SO' tulas, silver glass of '20' tulas aad silver lota o '50' tulas, etc,, total worth of Rs. 50,000/-. '15'days later to the marriage the father of A-1 dled, Thereupon, both the accused began blaming the deceased that her stepping-in resulted"in the death of her father-in-law and started ill-treating and harassing her. During the Deepavali after the marriage the accused asked P W 1 for '2' tulas of gold, one Hatari T V., and new clothes. However, P W 1 gave only the T V., and new clothes. Subsequently the deceased gave birth to a female child. Then again the accused asked P W 1 for '2' tulas of gold and a silver spoon for the baby which P W-1 gave. Even after the birth of the baby there was no peace in the house and both the accused continued ill- treating the deceased. While so in May, '86 P W 1 performed the marriage of his son, P W 2. On that occasion both the accused demanded for '5' tulas of gold. However, P W 1 expressed his inability and gave them only Rs. 1116/- for purchasing new clothes to A-1. On 25-5-'86 P W 1 invited all his relatives for lunch to his house in connection with the marriage of P W 2. A-1 and the deceased had their lunch. P W I requested them to stay for dinner also in the night. A-1 took the dinner at about 8-30 p.m., along with other gents. When dinner was being served to the ladies, A-1 did not allow the deceased to dine and took her away in an auto to his house. During the journey in the auto A-1 pressed the neck of the deceased and when she protested he also slapped her. After reaching the house A-1 complained to A-2 that at the time of the meals proper courtesy was not shown to him in the house of his in-laws. So, A-2 abused the deceased. On the next morning i.e. 26-5-'86 at about 4-00 a m., the deceased wont to the ground-floor to bring water from the common tap. Whan the deceased went to the up-stairs with the water-pot, A-2 abused the deceased in filthy language and questioned her if she was talking with her paramour on the ground floor . The deceased retorted by saying how it would be if she used - the same abuse against A 2. ..Thereupon, A.-2 star ted beating the deceased, and A-1 also joined her in beating the deceased. The deceased wanted to pick-up her daughter who was till then crying. However, both the accused snatched the child and pushed the deceased into the kitchen asking her to die. Being unable to bear with the day-to-day torture the deceased bolted the door inside, poured kerosene on herself and burnt herself with a match- stick. She was admitted into the hospital on the same day, i.e. 26-5-'86, but she died on 7-6-'86. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem opined that the death was duet to the burn-injuries. PW 10, the Inspector of Police, came to the hospital on 26-5-'86 and recorded the dying declaration, Ex. P-17, of the deceased. The Magistrate, P W 9, on request also came to the hospital on 26-5-'86 and recorded the dying declaration, Ex. P-16. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed.

(3.) The prosecution in all examined P Ws. 1 to 16 and marked documents, Exs. P-l to P-21. When examined under section 313 Cr PC., A-1 stated as under :