YENGARIGALA YADAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dtd. 11/7/2014 in S.C.No.472 of 2012 passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that appellants/accused alleged to have poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze and later deceased succumbed to burn injuries and thus it is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 498-A of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 3. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C and also sentenced them undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500.00 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC, both sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for Accused Nos.1 and 2 mainly contended that none of the witnesses spoke about the harassment for additional dowry, but they were convicted under Sec. 498-A of IPC. Police further stated that P.Ws.5 and 7, who are neighbors clearly stated that accused were not present in the house when the offence took place, but their evidence was not appreciated properly. The Trial Court erred in convicting the accused basing upon Ex.P8, without any supporting witness. The Trial Court observed that dying declaration was supported by testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 3. It is for the prosecution to prove Ex.P8 and it was not mentioned under Ex.P8 that victim was not in a fit state of mind. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment.