JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parameswara Rao, Counsel representing the appellant-A1 provided by Legal Aid and Mr. Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. Appellant-A1 preferred the present criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 26.7.2002 in Sessions Case No. 116 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
3. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant-A1 had almost completed the imprisonment imposed on her, except just less than one month.
4. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jagtlal filed the charge-sheet against A1 and A2 under Sections 304-B and 302, IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar arrived at a conclusion that A1 subjected the deceased to cruelty driving up to commit suicide, and it attracts the ingredients under Section 498-A IPC, but however, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A2 and accordingly, convicted A1 only and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.
5. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 13, and Exs. P1 to P13 and M.Os. 1 to 3.
6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W. 2 Siripuram Narayana is the father of the deceased. A1 is the mother of A1. P.W. 2 and the accused are the residents of Jagtial town. P.W. 2 performed the marriage of the deceased with A2 in the year 1994, and at the time of the marriage, he gave Rs. 20,000/-, and household articles worth Rs. 10,000/- towards dowry to the accused. After the marriage, the deceased and A2 lived happily for about six months and, thereafter, the accused started harassing her both mentally and physically in connection with demand for additional dowry, which P.W. 2 could not pay. On that, A1 necked out the deceased from her house and, as such, the deceased and A2 resided in a rented house and due to the financial problems, they were unable to pay the rent, the deceased and A2 returned to the house of A1 about 5 months prior to 17.4.1999. The accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry, but the deceased could not fulfil their demand of additional dowry and, as such, the accused decided to kill her. On 17.4.1999, A1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire and the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Jagtial, where she succumbed to burn injuries on 3.5.1999 at 8.50 a.m., while undergoing treatment.
On 17.4.1999 at 2.00 p.m., P.W. 1-Dr. N. Venkata Ratnam, Duty Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jagtial sent an intimation to Jagtial Town Police Station about the admission of the deceased with 90% burn injuries, and the said intimation was registered as a case in Cr. No. 72 of 1999 by P.W. 12 – M.A. Mannan, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police as Woman Burning Case. P.W. 12 submitted a requisition before P.W. 10 – P. Laxminarayana, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial to record the dying declaration of the deceased and, accordingly, P.W. 10 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P.W. 12 visited the scene of offence and prepared the observation report in the presence of P.W. 7- M. Narayana and another and seized half burnt saree pieces and a plastic kerosene tin under a cover of Panchanama. P.W. 12 recorded the statement of the deceased on 20.4.1999, after she regained her consciousness, and on the basis of the said statement, P.W. 12 altered the sections of Law to Sections 498-A and 307, IPC. on 20.4.1999. He also examined P.W. 2- Siripuram Narayana, P.W. 3-Siripuram Laxmi Bai, P.W. 4 – Gurram Gangu Bai and two others and recorded their statements.
On 30.5.1999 at 8.50 a.m., the deceased died. On receipt of the death intimation. P.W. 12 altered the sections of Law from Sections 498-A and 307, IPC to Sections 304-B and 302, IPC. On receipt of the death intimation of the deceased, P.W. 13 – T. Sudershan, Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation and sent intimation to P.W. 9-C. Sriram Reddy, Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial, to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased and accordingly, P.W. 9 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 6-Boduganti Sathaiah and others on 3.5.1999. P.W. 11-Dr. Prakash Kumar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jagtial, who conducted autopsy, over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. P.W. 13 arrested the accused on 13.5.1999 at 9.00 a.m. at their house in the presence of P.W. 8-Pilli Goverdhan and another, and recorded their confessional statements leading to recovery of a match box at the instance of A.1, which he seized under a cover of Panchanama. After completion of the investigation, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jagtial laid the charge-sheet against the accused.
7. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial had taken the cognizance of the offence under Sections 302 and 304-B, IPC as P.R.C. No. 105 of 1999 and committed to the Court of Session, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 116 of 2000, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, after recording the evidence, had recorded acquittal against A2 and convicted A1 under Section 498-A, IPC.
8. A1 is the mother of A2. The learned Judge had discussed the evidence commencing from paragraphs 11 to 20, and ultimately, recorded the reasons, as to why the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the ingredients of Section 498-A, IPC are attracted as against Al, and convicted and sentenced her accordingly.
9. This Court had given anxious consideration to the evidence available on record. Though the accused had been charged with grave charges, ultimately, the prosecution version had boiled down to the punishment under Section 498-A IPC only.
10. In the result, the conviction imposed by the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar against the appellant-A1 in Sessions Case No. 116 of 2000 on 26.7.2002 for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is confirmed.
But however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as it is represented that the appellant had already undergone the substantial portion of the sentence imposed, except one month left, taking into consideration the facts appellant-A1 is a lady and sufficiently aged, it would be just, if the appellant-A1 is sentenced to the period of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by her under Section 498-A, IPC and, accordingly, all other findings are hereby confirmed, except this slight modification in the imposition of sentence.
It is needless to say that in view of the modification of sentence, appellant-A1 shall be set at liberty forthwith. Subject to the above said modification, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.