CRLRC/78/2005 of Yerru Venkata Rao Vs The State of A.P. rep. by SHO Prohibition AND Excise P.S., on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgmentdated 25.1.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2004 on the file of IAdditional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby the conviction and sentencepassed against the accused by the Additional Junior Civil Judge,Mangalagiri, by judgment dated 20.05.2003 in C.C.No.320 of 2001, wasconfirmed.

2. The facts in brief are that on 11.1.1997, pursuant to the orders of theDeputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, the AssistantCommissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, along with Prohibition &Excise Inspector, D.T.F, Guntur and other officials of Mangalagiri,proceeded to the house bearing No.11-513 of Keerthipalem inPedavaadlapudi Village. That A.1 was found to be present in the houseand after serving search warrant on him, it was searched in the presenceof mediators and two gunny bags were found loaded with Whisky bottles. One containing 48 bagpiper whiskey bottles of 750 ML each capacity and 47 bottles of same brand and capacity were found in the another bag. The material objects were seized and a crime in P.R.No.254/96-97 wasregistered by S.H.O. P & E, Mangalagiri. under cover of Ex.P.4. A.1 statedthat A.2 has taken the said house on lease. A.2 to A.6 were conductingliquor sales topettyliquor vendors and A6 used to invest money to thesaid business, T.Yogabharath, P & E Inspector took the bottle each assample for analysis from both the gunny bags, sealed both samples andthe gunny bagas containing the remaining liquor botttels affixed identity slips on both the same bottles and gunny bags and arrested A.1 afterexplaining the grounds of arrest and seized the contraband under cover ofMediator’s report. Subsequently, on 4.5.1997 S.T.N.Reddy, P & E Inspector, Mangalagiri arrested A2. A.3 ,A.4 , and A.6 surrendered beforethe court . After investigation,, a charge sheet was laid and the case wastaken

3. That in case she joins her husband, fearing further ill treatment andharassment by A1 and A2, the deceased disgusted with the life, takingadvantage of absence of her parents, closed the doors of the house andpoured kerosene on her body and set herself afire. On 27-6-2000 at about6.30 p.m. she suffered severe burn injuries and succumbed thereto whileundergoing treatment at Area Hospital in Miryalguda; that the learnedJudicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda recorded her dying declarationand that the Investigating Officer also recorded such statement during theintervening night 27/28-6-2000.

4. The Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 toP.16 and M.Os 1 to 3, whereas Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked on behalf ofthe defence.

5. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court i.e. Assistant SessionsJudge, Miryalguda found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 304 (B)IPC; that A2 was not found guilty for the said offence and she wasacquitted. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda(PW.15) recorded the dying declaration under Ex.P.16 wherein thedeceased made a categorical statement that A.1 demanded additionaldowry and caused harassment on that count besides stating as to thereceiving legal notice from A1 to join him within seven days. Anticipatingthat both the accused may not allow her to live, she has taken the extreme step.

6. The evidence of material witnesses namely PWs 2 to 5 and 8 is tothe effect that the accused demanded additional dowry and the dyingdeclaration also corroborates the same and that keeping in view the firstinstance of A1 and A2 beating the deceased, her becoming unconsciousand hospitalisation and the second instance of legal notice sent by A1 thedeceased had taken the extreme step. It is a fact that the deceased hadreceived a legal notice just a week before the incident; that since she was

married to A1 on 5-2-1998, her death was within the period of sevenyears of her marriage. Ex.P.1, dying declaration and the evidence ofmaterial witnesses go to show that there was demand of additional dowryand cruelty and harassment was mated out to the deceased. Therefore,the ingredients of Section 113- B of Indian Evidence Act and that ofSection 304 (B) IPC are established.

7. In the circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counselfor the revision petitioner-A.1 that there was no proximity between thealleged harassment and the death of the deceased, cannot be acceptedand also the other contention that since the deceased suffered 100% burninjuries, it was not possible for her to give such a categorical statementunder Ex.P.16 dying declaration, is also not acceptable to the court in viewof the medical evidence as well as preliminary recording of PW.15-learned Judicial First Class Magistrate as to the condition of the deceasedat that time.

8. Further in the circumstance, the confirmation by the first appellatecourt of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court doesnot suffer from any legal infirmities and as such does not warrantinterference from this court, in any way.

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholdingthe conviction and sentence imposed by the first appellate court toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for theoffence under Section 304(B) IPC.

_______________

B.N.RAO NALLA,J

-12-2009

Stp