Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1222 (AP)

Thipparapu Rajamallaiah v. State Of A. P.

2004-10-26

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 17 and D. W. 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P8, Exs. D1 and D2 and MO1 and ultimately came to conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was also further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 3 ) SRI. S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing the appellant/accused, by way of legal aid, made following submissions. Learned counsel would contend that the contents of Ex. D2 are clear and categorical and absolutely there is no whisper about the harassment relating to dowry. In the light of Ex. D2 and the evidence of D. W. 1, the accused himself, who had entered into the witness box, there is no question of any dowry harassment as such and consequently, conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also would contend that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 are close relatives of the deceased and except their evidence on the demand for dowry by the accused, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned Counsel also pointed out that P. W. 3 had not spoken anything relating to the demand of additional dowry. Absolutely there is no independent evidence, in this regard. 1, 2 and 10 are close relatives of the deceased and except their evidence on the demand for dowry by the accused, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned Counsel also pointed out that P. W. 3 had not spoken anything relating to the demand of additional dowry. Absolutely there is no independent evidence, in this regard. Learned counsel also would submit that, may be in the light of the contents of Ex. D2 also there might have been some harassment, but definitely the charges under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be said to have been established on the strength of this evidence available on record. Learned counsel also pointed out certain infirmities and the exaggerated versions spoken by P. Ws. 1 and 2 relating to injuries and absence of injuries on the deceased as reflected from the medical evidence. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that Ex. D2 marked though D. W. 1 need not be given any serious weight for the reason that subsequent there to, the deceased wife had filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and after some lapse of time, the unfortunate incident had happened. The mere fact that in Ex. D2, the harassment relating to dowry had not been specified by itself would not be sufficient and except the interested testimony of D. W. 1, the accused himself, no other evidence had been let in by way of defence by the accused and hence, it may have to be taken that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 in relation to demand of additional dowry is believable. Hence, conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellant/accused are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) THE prosecution version is as follows: the deceased, Prameela committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison not being able to bear the harassment and ill treatment meted out by the accused by making demand of additional dowry from her parents. The further version of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased and the accused took place in the month of November 1997. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was agreed as dowry, out of which Rs. 18,500/- was paid at the time of marriage. The couple lived happily for some time. The further version of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased and the accused took place in the month of November 1997. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was agreed as dowry, out of which Rs. 18,500/- was paid at the time of marriage. The couple lived happily for some time. Thereafter the accused started harassing the deceased mentally and physically for the balance amount of dowry of Rs. 1,500/- and an additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/ -. The knowledge of the accused that the lands of L. W. 1 were sold away led to the accused to further harass the deceased, a panchayath was held on 19. 08. 2000 and the accused was consoled saying that the dowry amount would be paid to him in a short time and advised him to look after the deceased with love and affection. The accused promised to do so, but in vain. He beat the deceased indiscriminately. On 23. 12. 2000 the deceased visited the parents house and informed the same to L. W. 1 and the same was reported to police. A crime was registered in Crl. No. 82 of 2000 for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused was arrested and after his release on bail, two months prior to the death of the deceased the accused visited his in-laws house and took away the deceased to his house with a promise to look after her well in future, but the accused did not keep up his promise and necked her out to her parents house demanding dowry. L. Ws. 1 and 2 have been promising the accused that they would pay the amount in the near future, but on 16. 03. 2001 the accused harassed the deceased and having got frustrated with the said treatment the deceased consumed organophosphate poison and died at the house of the accused. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Husband had committed P. R. C. No. 55 of 2001 to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar and S. C. No. 160 of 2002 was made over to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for disposal according to law. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 17 and Exs. P1 to P8 and MO1 were marked. The accused examined himself as D. W. 1 and Ex. D2 was marked through D. W. 1. Ex. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 17 and Exs. P1 to P8 and MO1 were marked. The accused examined himself as D. W. 1 and Ex. D2 was marked through D. W. 1. Ex. D1 is the relevant portion in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 10. Learned Judge discussed the evidence available on record and placed reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 relating to the demand of additional dowry and arrived at a conclusion that the ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been established. P. W. 1 deposed that she is living by coolie work and accused used to harass the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/ -. They agreed to give the same after selling after selling lands belonging to them by Deepavali and asked the accused to look after the deceased with love. This witness also deposed about the panchayath held to compromise between the deceased and the accused and advised the accused to look after the deceased with love and affection. Two months after the panchayath, accused and deceased live amicably and again the accused treated the deceased cruelly and harassed her for additional dowry. The deceased, being vexed with her life, consumed poison and then died. She also deposed that on seeing the injuries, she thought that the accused caused those injuries. Ex. P1 is complaint. P. W. 2 is the sister of the deceased and daughter of P. W. 1. She also deposed about all the particulars which had been deposed by P. W. 1. P. W. 3 no doubt deposed about what transpired at the time of marriage. But this witness had not deposed about the demand of any additional dowry. P. W. 4 is one of the panchayatdars who deposed about conducting panchayath and accused agreeing to look after the deceased properly and thereafter, one Srinivas came and informed them that the deceased died by consuming poison. P. W. 5 simply deposed that he is working as village servant and he knows the deceased who died two years back by consuming poison. P. W. 6 deposed about the deceased consuming poison and they went to see the dead body and the RMP doctor asked to take the deceased to hospital at Karimnagar. P. W. 5 simply deposed that he is working as village servant and he knows the deceased who died two years back by consuming poison. P. W. 6 deposed about the deceased consuming poison and they went to see the dead body and the RMP doctor asked to take the deceased to hospital at Karimnagar. P. W. 7 also deposed to the same effect that the RMP doctor advised to take the deceased to the hospital at Karimnagar. P. W. 8 also deposed about the deceased being unconscious and this witness advised them to take the deceased to Karimnagar for better treatment. P. W. 9 is the jeep driver who also deposed about his taking the deceased to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. By the time they reached Thimmapur, the deceased expired and they returned to Indurthi. P. W. 10 deposed that deceased is his younger brothers daughter and they drafted a compromise during the panchayath. This witness also deposed that he has stated to the police that the panchayath has taken place before the case was registered against the accused as in Ex. D1. This witness no doubt substantially supported the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 11 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and deposed that there were no injuries on the body. Ex. P2 is the post mortem examination report. Ex. P3 is the FSL report. Ex. P4 is the final opinion. P. W. 12 is the witness to the inquest over the dead body. This witness deposed that as per the opinion, the deceased deed because of harassment meted out by the accused for dowry. P. W. 13 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Chigurumamidi. P. W. 14 is the Sub-Divisional Police, Chigurumamidi. P. W. 14 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who deposed about the details of investigation. P. W. 15 deposed about receiving requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police and conducting inquest panchanama over the dead body. Ex. P5 is the inquest panchanama. This witness also deposed that the deceased died by consuming poison because of harassment for dowry by the accused and that was the opinion expressed by the witness present during the inquest. P. W. 16 was declared hostile. P. W. 17 is the photographer who deposed about Ex. P8. Ex. P5 is the inquest panchanama. This witness also deposed that the deceased died by consuming poison because of harassment for dowry by the accused and that was the opinion expressed by the witness present during the inquest. P. W. 16 was declared hostile. P. W. 17 is the photographer who deposed about Ex. P8. D. W1 is the accused who deposed that he never harassed the deceased for any dowry and his mother died in the year 1994. He is having younger brother and two younger sister and he is having the responsibility to look after them, as there are no female members to look after the family. This witness also deposed about the panchayath and the resolution of the panchayath and marked Ex. D2. This witness also deposed about the details of the panchayath and further deposed that the elders advised him to take the deceased to his house and for two months, they were amicable and the neighour of his house went and met the parents of the deceased in a marriage at Sundaragiri village and advised her parents to visit the deceased. Then the parents of the deceased stated that they do not wish to visit the deceased as she has gone to the house of accused against their will. Two days after the said marriage, the deceased consumed poison. Later he came to know through the neighbours that the deceased was informed about the response of her parents by one Ande Laxmi, Balaiah and Rajavva and deceased consumed poison only for the aforesaid reason but not because of harassment meted out by the accused. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 10 as available on record relates to the demand of additional dowry. But all these are close relatives of the deceased. Except their evidence, there is no other independent evidence available on record. Ex. D2 was marked by D. W. 1, which reads as under. TELUGU a careful reading of the contents of Ex. D2 would go to show that there were some misunderstandings between the wife and husband and in case of further harassment, it was decided by the elders that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid. It is no doubt true that except D. W. 1, none others were examined in relation to Ex. D2. D2 would go to show that there were some misunderstandings between the wife and husband and in case of further harassment, it was decided by the elders that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid. It is no doubt true that except D. W. 1, none others were examined in relation to Ex. D2. P. W. 1 also deposed about the panchayath. There is no mention of any harassment in relation to dowry specified in Ex. D2. The evidence available on record would go to show that in view of the fact that the harassment continued and a private complaint under Section 498-A IPC also had been filed and subsequent there to, the husband and wife lived for some time and ultimately the incident happened. The specific stand taken by the accused who deposed as D. W. 1 is that since the parents of the deceased were not willing to see her, vexed with the same, she had left this world. ( 7 ) ON appreciation of the evidence available on record it is definitely doubtful whether due to harassment in relation to demand of additional dowry, the deceased had committed suicide. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted. At any rate, the appellant/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt in relation to these charges in the light of Ex. D2. It is no doubt true that submissions at length were made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that subsequent to Ex. D2, series of events had happened and hence much importance need not be given to the contents of Ex. D2. Learned Judge also recorded certain reasons in relation to Ex. D2 which definitely cannot be sustained. However, in the light of the clear evidence available on record, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are attracted. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2003 is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A IPC are hereby confirmed. It is no doubt represented that the appellant/accused has been undergoing imprisonment for sufficiently a long time. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A IPC are hereby confirmed. It is no doubt represented that the appellant/accused has been undergoing imprisonment for sufficiently a long time. It is needless to say that the period of imprisonment and sentence imposed in regard to Section 498-A IPC, if already completed, the appellant/accused be set at liberty, if not required in any other case, by computing the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellant/accused under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A IPC are hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.