- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned 4th Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad had convicted both the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. In appeal, A2 was acquitted by the High Court.
(3.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: A1 the present appellant is the son of A2 who married Manjula (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') the daughter of PWs.1 & 2 about six years prior to the date of incident. Sub Inspector of Police (PW9) of Osmania University Police Station received a message at 6.45 P.M. on 8.2.1999 from Gandhi Hospital stating that one Manjula was admitted in the hospital allegedly having consumed unknown acid at her residence on the said date. He entered the same in G.D., went to the hospital and found that the deceased was unable to speak due to acid burns in her throat. All his visits on subsequent dates proved futile. Therefore, he deputed Constable (P.W.3) on 13-2-1999 to the hospital. Accordingly, he went to the hospital at 11 A.M. and recorded her statement-Ex.P2 and handed over the said statement to P.W.9. On the basis of the said statement P.W.9 registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 1999 under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and issued FIR-Ex.P12 to all concerned. He visited the Gandhi Hospital and recorded statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') of the deceased under Ex.P13. He further examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others, visited the scene of offence, which is the house of the deceased at Manikanteswar Nagar, but did not find any incriminating material at the scene of offence and examined the neighbours. He sent a requisition-Ex.P3 to P.W.4-XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. On receipt of requisition the Magistrate visited the hospital at 7.20 P.M. and after obtaining endorsement of the doctor that patient was conscious and coherent and also after putting some preliminary questions he recorded the dying declaration- (Ex.P4). Thereafter, P.W.9 arrested the accused on 23-03-1999 and sent them to court, subsequently on 13-04-1999 on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner of Police he along with P.Ws.8 and 7 proceeded to Golanukonda village and exhumed the dead body of the deceased PW 7, the M.R.O. conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and Professor (PW 8), Forensic Medicine, Kakatiya Medical College, Waranga conducted postmortem examination. After completion of investigation police laid the charge sheet for the offence as aforementioned. On committal, charges were framed against the accused; read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order- to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on defense side. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence on record found the accused guilty and convicted for the offence, as aforementioned. The trial court relied primarily on the statement made before the Head Constable (PW3). The statement recorded by him is Exh.P2. The Magistrate (PW 4) recorded the dying declaration. Placing reliance on the evidence more particularly on the dying declaration, the conviction was recorded. In appeal, the primary stand was that the evidence was insufficient to convict A2 and that the dying declaration should not have been acted upon. The High Court found substance in the plea that the evidence was not sufficient to convict A2, but found the evidence to be sufficient so far as A1 i.e. present appellant is concerned.;