THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.565 of 2007 17-07-2014 BETWEEN:
Penki Govindu …..Appellant/accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P., …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.565 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 17.05.2007 passed in S.C.No.80 of 2006 by the Hon’ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That from the date of their marriage, the appellant/accused (husband) used to quarrel with the deceased (wife) and assault her. One day, it was brought to the notice of the brother of the deceased that his sister died in her matrimonial home. On the basis of the complaint given by the brother of the deceased, a case was registered against the appellant/accused under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC, and the case was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that the appellant/accused and her daughter are frequently quarrelling and that she does not know for what purpose they are quarrelling. She further deposed that the accused beat the deceased though she requested him not to beat the deceased. P.W.2, who is the resident of the village of the deceased, deposed that the accused and the deceased were living happily and she further deposed that she came to know that the deceased died due to disputes between herself and the accused. P.W.3, who was the maid servant in the house of the deceased, deposed that the appellant/accused and the deceased quarrel each other suspecting the fidelity of the deceased by the accused. P.W.4, who is related to the deceased, deposed that both the accused and the deceased used to quarrel each other frequently, that the accused came to her departmental meeting once and beat the deceased in the meeting and the then Health Supervisor chastised the accused and sent him away. She further deposed that due to harassment of the accused and suspecting her fidelity, the deceased died in the bathroom of their house. P.W.5, who was the Vice President of the Panchayat, acted as panchayatdar, deposed that the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died by swallowing tablets. P.W.6, the then Inspector of Police, conducted investigation and further investigation was done by the Inspector of Police, P.W.7. P.W.7, who is the Inspector of Police, conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet. P.W.8, who is the friend of the deceased, deposed that the deceased along with her children attended the marriage function and from that day onwards, the disputes started in between the accused and the deceased. She further deposed that she chastised the accused for his high handed behaviour towards the deceased.
The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and also on hearing arguments, found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is observed that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 categorically deposed that there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant/accused with regard to the fidelity of the deceased. P.W.5, except deposed that the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died by swallowing tablets, did not depose specifically the reasons for such death. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, categorically deposed that she does not know for what purpose the appellant/accused and the deceased were quarrelling.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that admittedly the frequent quarrels between the appellant/accused and the deceased, leads commission of suicide by the deceased. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction imposed by the Court below against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. However, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased committed suicide only on the ground that there was quarrel between the appellant/accused and the deceased, a lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
This Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the facts and law in proper perspective, and therefore, the conviction imposed against the appellant/accused under Section 306 IPC is hereby confirmed. However, in view of the above discussion and also in view of the mitigating circumstances, this Court modifies the sentence of imprisonment to that of the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The fine amount, if any, is not interfered with.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.07.2014 pln