JUDGMENT : Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is by the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 to the judgment, dated 23.06.2010 in Sessions Case No.769 of 2009, on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found A.1 to A.3 not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short), but found them guilty of the charge under Section 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C., convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 18 months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks each. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.769 of 2009 arose out of a committal order passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli in P.R.C.No.67 of 2009, pertaining to Crime No.118 of 2008 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station. 4. The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sattenappli, filed charge sheet in Crime No.118 of 2008 of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station, alleging in substance that L.W.1-Mekala Kannamma is the mother of one Lanka Siromani (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”). L.W.2-Chedapongu Sarojini is grandmother of deceased. L.W.3-Chedapongu David is son of L.W.2. The deceased is native of Mannesultanpalem Village of Bellamkonda Mandal. Her marriage was performed with A.1 of Komerapudi Village of Sattenapalli Mandal four years ago as per the caste customs. For one year their matrimonial life runs away happily. A.2 and A.3 who are in-laws of the deceased used to carry back-bits to their son A.1, where A.1 suspected her fidelity and harassed her physically and mentally. They continued the harassment over the deceased for additional dowry since the marriage. It was informed to her parents. On 30.10.2008 morning at 8-00 a.m., L.W.8-Devarakonda Kondamma called the deceased for coolie works. Then she went to the house of L.W.7-Lanka Yesobu for veiling tuft through L.W.10-Lanka Rebaka. After few minutes, A.2 followed the deceased and abused her indiscriminately. Then she returned to her house where A.1 to A.3 beat her indiscriminately and demanded for additional dowry. On 30.10.2008 morning at 8-00 a.m., L.W.8-Devarakonda Kondamma called the deceased for coolie works. Then she went to the house of L.W.7-Lanka Yesobu for veiling tuft through L.W.10-Lanka Rebaka. After few minutes, A.2 followed the deceased and abused her indiscriminately. Then she returned to her house where A.1 to A.3 beat her indiscriminately and demanded for additional dowry. Due to unbearable harassment of the accused, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and lit fire. Then the flames blow up where the deceased raised cries. On hearing the cries, A.1 and L.W.6-Bandla Rayelu rushed and rescued the deceased and shifted her to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli for treatment. Then she was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur. Basing on the statement of the deceased, L.W.23-Head Constable, visited the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli and recorded her statement from 11-15 a.m. to 11-45 a.m. on 30.12.2008 and registered it as a case in F.I.R.No.118 of 2008 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station and took up investigation. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, seized kerosene tin having little of kerosene and drafted observation report. He examined as many as 10 witnesses. During the course of investigation, L.W.24-Assistat Sub-Inspector arrested A.1 to A.3 on 25.11.2008 at 11-45 a.m. at Kantepudi Cross Road and sent them for judicial custody. L.W.25-Sub Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence and examined relevant witnesses. While undergoing treatment on 28.11.2008 at 8-00 a.m., the victim succumbed to burn injuries at Government General Hospital, Guntur. Then L.W.25 altered the Section of law from 498-A of IPC to 304-B of IPC on 28.11.2008 and drafted fresh FIR. L.W.20-The Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He forwarded the dead body for autopsy. L.W.26-Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sattenapalli verified the investigation done by Head Constable and Sub-Inspector of Police and he re-examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. The Medical Officers conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report stating that the death of the deceased is due to complications of burns. L.W.26 completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge. 5. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenappali, took cognizance of the case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.67 of 2008. L.W.26 completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge. 5. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenappali, took cognizance of the case under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.67 of 2008. On appearance of the accused and on compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and by exercising powers under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereupon, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.769 of 2009 and made over the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for disposal in accordance with law. 6. On appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C. were framed against the accused and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and M.O.1. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked respectively. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same and stated that they have no defence witnesses. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.1 to A.3 not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., but found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 filed the present appeal challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 9. There is no appeal filed by the State with regard to acquittal of the accused under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Under the circumstances, the scope of the appeal is confined to Section 498-A of I.P.C. only. 10. There is no appeal filed by the State with regard to acquittal of the accused under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Under the circumstances, the scope of the appeal is confined to Section 498-A of I.P.C. only. 10. Now in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.769 of 2009, proved that A.1 to A.3 subjected the deceased by name Lanka Siromani to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of I.P.C. in the manner as alleged? (2) Whether the judgment, dated 23.06.2010 in S.C.No.769 of 2009 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant? Point Nos.1 and 2:- 11. P.W.1 was no other than the mother of deceased. P.W.2 was the mother of P.W.1 being the grandmother of deceased. P.W.3 was the son of P.W.2. P.W.4 was the younger brother of the husband of P.W.1. P.W.5 was a neighbourer. P.W.6 was also neighbourer. P.W.7 was a person, who called the deceased for coolie works. The prosecution examined P.W.8 and P.W.9 to prove the marriage between A.1 and the deceased and the said fact is not in dispute. P.W.10 was the mahazar witness to the observation of the scene of offence and also to the inquest panchanama. P.W.11 was the Executive Magistrate, who conducted panchayanama. P.W.12 was the Head Constable, who recorded the statement under Ex.P.8 on receipt of medical intimation. P.W.13 was the A.S.I., who registered the FIR and arrested A.1 to A.3. P.W.14 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. P.W.15 was the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.16 was the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who continued the investigation and laid charge sheet after altered Section of law under Section 304-B of I.P.C. 12. The marriage of the deceased with A.1 was not in dispute. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding material aspects is that after the marriage the deceased was sent to the house of Accused to lead marital life. A.1 to A.3 and the deceased used to reside under the same roof. A.2 and A.3 used to demand for additional dowry, for which they expressed their inability. A.1 used to attend coolie works. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding material aspects is that after the marriage the deceased was sent to the house of Accused to lead marital life. A.1 to A.3 and the deceased used to reside under the same roof. A.2 and A.3 used to demand for additional dowry, for which they expressed their inability. A.1 used to attend coolie works. A.1 used to beat the deceased on the words of A.2 and A.3 for not giving additional dowry. They made several efforts to resolve the issue. About 16 or 17 months ago A.1 to A.3 quarreled with the deceased and A.1 beat the deceased and the deceased set ablaze herself by pouring kerosene. On receipt of information, they proceeded to Komarapudi village. By that time, the deceased was taken to Sattenapalli Hospital. Then they proceeded to Sattenappali and by that time she was taken to Government General Hospital. They were allowed to go to the deceased. They asked the deceased as to what happened. She stated that all the accused were giving trouble to her and on the date of incident, they beat her and due to that reason, she set herself ablaze. The deceased was treated for one month and thereafter she was succumbed to injuries. 13. The evidence of P.W.2 is that the deceased used to tell her that her in-laws were teasing her on the pretext of not attending the works and not doing the work properly. They used to convince the deceased stating that the same is the common phenomenon in the houses of in-laws. On the date of incident, they received phone call that the deceased set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. They went to the hospital and saw the deceased. 14. The evidence of P.W.3 is also to the effect that the deceased used to tell her that accused were quarreling with her. About one year ago at about 10-00 a.m., he came to know that the deceased set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene, as accused made quarrel with her. 15. The evidence of P.W.4 is also similar as that of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 16. As P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution, prosecution got declared him as hostile and further it also got declared P.W.6 as hostile. According to them, they did not know the reason for burn injuries of the deceased. 17. 15. The evidence of P.W.4 is also similar as that of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 16. As P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution, prosecution got declared him as hostile and further it also got declared P.W.6 as hostile. According to them, they did not know the reason for burn injuries of the deceased. 17. There is no dispute as evident from the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 about the marriage between A.1 and the deceased. There is also no dispute about the cause of death of deceased. The evidence of P.W.10 reveals that he acted as mediator to the observation of the scene of offence and seizure of M.O.1 and further inquest panchanama. P.W.11-the Executive Magistrate testified that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. 18. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend that the case of the prosecution with regard to the allegations under Section 304-B of I.P.C. were proved to be false. There is no whisper in Ex.P.1 that A.1 to A.3 subjected the deceased to harassment by bringing amounts for dowry. This fact was duly taken note of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon Ex.P.8 said to be the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by P.W.12-Head Constable, gave conviction under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.3 which is not tenable under law. He would contend that the so-called Ex.P.8 was not recorded by P.W.12 by following the procedure to record the dying declarations. There was no certification by any Doctor about the mental condition of injured at the time of Ex.P.8. The medical officer did not send any medical intimation to the Magistrate concerned though the deceased was brought to the hospital with burns. He would submit that when the allegations about the dowry were not proved, conviction of the accused under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is not tenable. Even Ex.P.8 is very vague with regard to the allegations against A.2 and A.3. It means that A.1 was alleged to have beaten the deceased suspecting her fidelity, but the conviction was given to A.1 to A.3. Though there was no dispute about the cause of death of deceased, but according to the defence, the deceased committed suicide on account of ill-health. It means that A.1 was alleged to have beaten the deceased suspecting her fidelity, but the conviction was given to A.1 to A.3. Though there was no dispute about the cause of death of deceased, but according to the defence, the deceased committed suicide on account of ill-health. These facts were not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge properly, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 19. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded cogent reasons to give credence to Ex.P.8, the statement of the injured and on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record and looking into the defence of the accused, findings were given that A.1 to A.3 subjected the deceased to cruelty, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 20. Admittedly, the criminal law was set on motion when the deceased was admitted into the hospital basing on Ex.P.8 statement of the injured by then. There is no dispute that the deceased survived for about 30 days subsequent to Ex.P.8. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that according to the evidence of P.W.12-Head Constable, on 30.10.2008 at 11-15 a.m., he received hospital intimation and secured the presence of injured-Lanka Siromani and recorded her statement at 11-15 a.m. It is to be noted that at the time of recording Ex.P.8 by P.W.12, he was not under the opinion that he is recording the dying declaration. It is to be noted that though Ex.P.8 did not contain any certification of the medical officer, but there was a whisper that contents of Ex.P.8 were read over to the deponent. It is a case that the deceased survives for about 30 days after Ex.P.8. It appears that medical officer did not send any intimation to the Magistrate to record dying declaration. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that Ex.P.8 was given by the deceased with serious burn injuries explaining the circumstances in which she received injuries. As rightly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it can be taken as dying declaration. 21. It is to be noted that there is no whisper in Ex.P.8 as regards any dowry harassment. As rightly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it can be taken as dying declaration. 21. It is to be noted that there is no whisper in Ex.P.8 as regards any dowry harassment. The entire allegations in Ex.P.8 were such that A.2 and A.3 used to say something before A.1 as against the deceased and A.1 used beat the deceased suspecting her fidelity. These are all the substance of the allegations in Ex.P.8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record exonerated the appellants for the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. However, by treating Ex.P.8 as dying declaration and on considering the evidence of kith and kin of the deceased, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the first limb of Section 498-A of IPC is satisfied, as such, convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 22. Now, for better appreciation, it is pertinent to extract here Section 498-A of I.P.C. 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 23. According to Section 498-A of I.P.C. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman amounts to cruelty. 24. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, this Court is of the considered view that there is consistency in the evidence, especially, with regard to the allegations against A.1. 24. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, this Court is of the considered view that there is consistency in the evidence, especially, with regard to the allegations against A.1. It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.1 that A.1 used to beat the deceased on the words of A.2 and A.3 is nothing but vague. The vagueness is confined as to the so-called words of A.2 and A.3. However, what is evident is that the deceased and her in-laws were not on amicable terms and even according to the case of the prosecution when the services of the deceased were required by P.W.7 for coolie works, the deceased did not attend the same. It appears that on the date of incident, though the deceased was supposed to attend the coolie work of P.W.7, but as the deceased went to the house of P.W.6 for veiling tuft of her, A.2 came there and scolded her. 25. It is pertinent to look into Ex.P.8-statement of the injured. It whispers literally that her mother-in-law (A.2) and her father-in-law (A.3) used to abuse her now and then and used to carry something to A.1. A.1 used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. She quoted the incident of 30.10.2008 stating that in the morning at 8-00 a.m., Kondamma a resident of their village came to her and asked her to come to work and went away. In order to comb her hair, she went to her brother-n-law’s house. In the meanwhile, her mother-in-law came and abused her as she like. She entered into her house and parents-in-law and her husband beat indiscriminately. Her husband beat her saying that she is talking with others. Unable to bear it, she took up the kerosene tin, poured the same on her body and set fire to herself by litting a match stick. Then flames arose. On her raising cries, her husband (A.1) and another woman brought her to the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in Ex.P.8 which was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as dying declaration. 26. As seen from Ex.P.8, there is a direct overt act against A.1 that he started beating the deceased stating that she is talking with others. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in Ex.P.8 which was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as dying declaration. 26. As seen from Ex.P.8, there is a direct overt act against A.1 that he started beating the deceased stating that she is talking with others. The conduct of A.1 as evident from Ex.P.8 is such that he used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and used to beat her. In my considered view, the allegations in Ex.P.8 insofar as A.2 and A.3 are concerned are somewhat vague. Even the reason set forth for the quarrel between the deceased and A.2 is that when the deceased went to her brother-in-law’s house to comb her hair, A.2 came there and quarreled with her. It cannot be considered as an act of cruelty insofar as the act against the A.2 is concerned. With regard to the incident on 30.10.2008 the allegations against A.2 and A.3 is such that A.1 to A.3 beaten her. It is very difficult to place reliance upon that allegation. Having looking into evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record coupled with Ex.P.8 presents a consistent case as against A.1. A.1 being the husband of the deceased has to take care of her welfare to resolve the minor differences, if any, between her and her in-laws. On the other hand, the evidence on record goes to prove that he gone to the extent of beating the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. This act of A.1 squarely falls under Section 498-A of Explanation-A of I.P.C. In my considered view, as the allegations in Ex.P.8 are not presenting consistent case against A.2 and A.3, it is unsafe to rely upon it. Insofar as the overt act against A.1 is concerned, according to the deceased, she fed up with the attitude when A.1 beaten her and set ablaze by pouring kerosene herself and tried to kill herself. If she had any bad intention, definitely, she would have exaggerated the version as against A.1. So, reliance can be placed upon Ex.P.8 insofar as the overt act against A.1 is concerned. In my considered view, the evidence on record categorically proves the cruelty as against A.1 is concerned and it is unsafe to believe the case of the prosecution insofar as A.2 and A.3. So, reliance can be placed upon Ex.P.8 insofar as the overt act against A.1 is concerned. In my considered view, the evidence on record categorically proves the cruelty as against A.1 is concerned and it is unsafe to believe the case of the prosecution insofar as A.2 and A.3. Hence, I hold that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against A.1 beyond reasonable doubt and A.2 and A.3 are liable to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed insofar as Appellant Nos.2 and 3 (A.2 and A.3) setting aside the conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and criminal appeal insofar as A.1 is concerned i.e., the first appellant, it shall stand dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Sessions Case No.769 of 2009, dated 23.06.2010. The fine amount, if any, paid by A.2 and A.3 shall be refunded to them after appeal time is over. 28. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court on or before 26.12.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the first appellant/A.1 and to report compliance to this Court. 29. The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the judgment to the trial Court, on or before 26.12.2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.