Baddrapuram Mahesh, Kukatpally Vs the State of a.P., Rep. Pp through Sho, Ps., Kukatpally

[³²⁵¹ I

NOTE:- The Accused was directed^{to be released on bail by the orderof theHigh} Courtdated 27-06-2012 in Crl.Appeal^{MP No.1218of 2012in Crl.A.No.572of 2012fl1il}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

cRtMINAL APPEAL NO: 572 OF 2012

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) ot^{Cr.P.C againstthe dated31'05'2012} in S.C.No. 241 of 2011 on^{the file of the Courtof the V Additional Districtand} Sessions Judge,^(Fast Track^{Court), Ranga Reddy District.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Baddrapuram Mahesh S/o. Late^{Narsimha,aged 30 years,Occ: Vegetable- '-} Vendor, R/o. H.No. 184512. Janatha Nagar,^{Kukatpally, Cyberabad.}

¶11

...APPELLANT (ACCUSED)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through SHO,^{PS., Kukatpally, Hyderabad}

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri^{Nizampur Chandra Sekhar}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Assistant PublicProsecutor}

¶17

The Court delivered the^{followingJUDGMENT:}

¶18

t1[

¶19

lXilr

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572 OF 2Ol2

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The appellant/A1 frled the appeal aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, in S.C.No.24l of 2OI l, dt. 31.05.2012, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant_ and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶25

The appellant/Al and Accused No.2 were charge sheeted for the olfence under Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted appellant and Accused No.2 for the offence under Section 304-8 of Indian penal Code, however convicted the appellant/Al for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 2I.06.201O at 10.0O p.m., the lnspector of Police, P.S Kukatpally (LW l2) received a complaint from PW. 1-complainant, resident of Rajcndranagar, wherein he stated that he performed his third daughter,s rnarriage i.e-, Anjamma rvith A1, resident of Moosapet, Cyberabad, about six years back. At the time of marriage, PW. I gave Rs.3O,O00/_

¶27

fll1l

¶28

2

¶29

(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and two tulas of gold as dowry. Anjamma was blessed with four children. Both the accused who iil lill are husband and mother-in-law of Anjamma were harassing Anjamma and beat her daily to bring additional dowry. For the past one year their harassment increased. Further, A1 was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with Anjamma on^petty issues and beat her. After A1 goes out for work, A2 starts harassing Anjamma to bring additional dowry and she also beats Anjamma on that ground. It is further stated that the complainant/PW.1 and his wife/PW.2 went to the residence ofaccused, convinced both the accused not to harass Anjamma. However, the accused did not change their attitude. On two or three occasions Anjamma tried to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills and pouring kerosene. PW.1 and PW.2^{again went} and convinced the accused not to harass Anjamma.^Due to^the harassment of accused one week prior to the incident, Anjamma came to the house of the complainant, but PW. I convinced^her and sent her back to the house of the accused along with his - son/PW.3. In front of PW.3, Al beat Anjamma. On 21.06.2010^at lO.OO A.M., unable to bear the harassment of both the accused, Anjamma poured Kerosene on her person and^{set herselfablaze.} Her neighbours noticed the same and admitted her in Gandhi

¶30

il^nill

¶31

3

¶32

hospital and while undergoing treatment, Anjamma died on the same day at about 5.20 p.m.

¶33

il[

¶34

On the basis of the above complaint, a case in Crime No.696 of 20 10 for the offence under Section 304-8 of Indian Penal Code was registered by LW. l2-lnspector of Police and he handed over the C.D file to PW. 10. PW. 10 accordingly conducted necessary investigation. He got inquest held over the dead body of the. deceased by Tahasildar, Balanagar Mandal, referred the dead body for postmortem examination. The medical oflicer conducted the postmortem and opined that the deceased died due to Hypovolemic shock due to burns. A1 was arrested on 02.OT.2O1O and was produced before the Court. A2 surrendered subsequently, before the Court. PW.1O seized incriminating material at the scene of offence . On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

¶35

The learncd Additional District Judge examined pWs.l to l0 and markcd Exs. Pl to P8 and M.O.1 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Additional District Judge having considered the, evidence on record, convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 498-A ol IPC rvhite acquitting him under Section 304-8 of the India n Pena I Code.

¶36

t[

¶37

4

¶38

Having gone through the record, the allegation of harassment is made out. Conviction for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code needs no interference. pW. l, pW.2 and PW.3 stated about deceased being beaten on a regular basis. Though no specific details are given, however the witnesses have stated that the appellant used to beat the deceased regularly. However, keeping in view the situation of the appellant, having to look after his aged mother and four children, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of three years to the period already undergone by him.

¶39

rtir

¶40