THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1633 of 2007
Date:17.09.2014
Between:
Addunuri Sambaiah . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.I of Police, Saidapur, Karimnagar District, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1633 of 2007
ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 08-02-2007 in Crl.A.No.153/2006 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar whereunder judgment dated 23-02-2006 in Sessions Case No.407/2003 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to fling of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidapur filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 17-09-2002, at about 6:00 P.M., elder sister of defacto-complainant- Nagamani along with her daughter-Swarnalatha (P.W.3) served tea to P.W.1 and others in the house and after P.W.1 left the house, on noticing that there is change of behaviour of speech of Nagamani and when enquired, the said Nagamani did not disclose anything and P.W.3 informed the complainant that Nagamani consumed poisonous pill and that, the complainant shifted the said Nagamani to Government Hospital, Huzurabad and the said Nagamani died while undergoing treatment and on the report of P.W.1, Crime No.55/2001 was registered and investigation revealed that Nagamani committed suicide due to dowry harassment and abetment and that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC. On these allegations, trial Court examined seven witnesses and marked 10 documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Karimnagar and IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. When this matter was listed on 12-08-2014, as no one appeared, it was directed to be posted on 01-09-2014 under the caption of orders and on 01-09-2014, on the request of Advocate for petitioner, it was adjourned to 03-09-2014. Again from 03-09-2014, on the request of advocate for petitioner, it was adjourned by two weeks under the same caption and when the matter is listed today, Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that they have given up Vakalat and there are no instructions from the client. Therefore, the matter is decided on the basis of material available on record.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that trial Court and appellate Court on a consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the material witnesses, which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses-P.Ws.4 to 7, convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the witnesses and both the Courts rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the deceased committed suicide and the same was due to the dowry harassment & abetment. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, who deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused and both of them blessed with a son & daughter and they lived happily for about three years, after the marriage and thereafter, the accused started harassing deceased Nagamani and used to beat her in a drunken state. He deposed to the complaint averments. According to evidence of P.W.2, the deceased took poison and on suspecting it, she was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Huzurabad and she died on the same day at about 8:30 P.M. She deposed that she came to know about the harassment through P.W.3. She further deposed P.W.3 informed her that the accused beat the deceased on the date of the incident and left the house. Evidence of P.W.3 who is the daughter of the deceased is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and their evidence is further corroborated with the evidence of inquest panchyatdars and other circumstantial witnesses. As seen from the grounds, the contention of the revision petitioner is that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and except the interested testimony, there is no other independent evidence to support the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3, but the objection of the revision petitioner is not tenable, because the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be discarded merely on the ground of interestedness. Here, P.W.3 is no other than the daughter of the accused & deceased and P.Ws.1 & 2 are brother & mother of the deceased. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on any of the aspects. Though these three witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of accused, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimonies. The other witnesses P.W.4 is photographer, P.W.5 is inquest panchayatdar and P.W.6 & 7 are the investigating officers. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that deceased was harassed and that deceased committed suicide due to the harassment caused by the revision petitioner. Both trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and considered every objection raised on behalf of the accused and decided it with convincing reasons. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial Court or by appellate Court. On a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, I am of the view that the facts narrated by them are most natural and convincing. There are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court.
7. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and that the revision is liable to dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. Accordingly, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming convicting and sentence.
9. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence, if any.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:17.09.2014 mrb