Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1226 (AP)

Edala Janaki Ramaiah v. State Of A. P.

2005-12-26

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2005
( 1 ) THE Accused 1 to 3 were tried in Sessions Case No. 218 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nizamabad, for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "ipc" ). On appraisal of the entire evidence, the Court below, vide its judgment dated 10-4-1997, while acquitting the third accused of the said charge, however, found the appellants/a1 and A2, guilty of the said charge and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. As against the said judgment, A1 and A2 preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE substance of the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, is as follows:"that you the above named accused on 21st day of May, 1993 at about 6. 30 p. m. at humnapur village, subjected the deceased edala Kanchana W/o Suri Babu, to harassment and ill-treatment for additional dowry of gold and cash, and that A1 and a2 of you being parents-in-law and A3 being sister-in-law of the deceased have driven her to commit suicide, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code within the cognizance of this Court. " ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, as spoken to by its witnesses during the course of trial, is as follows: ( 4 ) P. W. 1 is the brother, P. W. 2 is the neighbour and P. W. 3 is the mother of the deceased. The appellants herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, and A3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Suri Babu, the son of a1 and A2, in the year 1990 and at the time of marriage, two acres of wet land and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the parents of the deceased towards dowry. The deceased and her husband Suri Babu lived happily for a period of two years and they were blessed with a male child, subsequently, misunderstandings crept in and the accused started harassing the deceased and demanding her to bring furniture, gold and also an amount of Rs. 20,000/ -. As she has not fulfilled those demands, she was necked out of the house along with her son in the year 1993. 20,000/ -. As she has not fulfilled those demands, she was necked out of the house along with her son in the year 1993. On 19-5-1993 Al visited p. W. 1 s house and took the son of the deceased forcibly stating that unless the demands are met, she will not be permitted to come back to their house. Having disgusted with the adamant attitude of her-in-laws, on 21-5-1993 at about 6. 00 P. M. ,the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to herself. On hearing the cries of the deceased, P. Ws. 3, 5, 6 and 7 broke open the doors and put the flames off, but the deceased received 80 percent bum injuries by then. Immediately thereafter, she was shifted to hospital by P. Ws. 3 and 7. During the course of transit, when P. W. 7 questioned the deceased as to why she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide, the deceased has stated that she had her own problems and on account of which she wanted to commit suicide. ( 5 ) AT about 8. 30 p. m. , on the same day i. e. , on 21-5-1993, basing on the requisition given by the Civil Assistant surgeon, who was examined as P. W. 4, p. W. 13, the Additional District Munsif magistrate of Nizamabad, visisted the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, which was marked as Ex. P3. On the next day at 4. 15 a. m. , the deceased succumbed to burn injuries. A report was given at 7. 30 a. m. , by P. W. I to the police. Basing on the said report, the then Assistant sub-Inspector of Police, Bhodan registered a case in Crime No. 116 of 1993 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and issued express first information report and copies to all the concerned. The said fir was marked as Ex. P9. Thereafter, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, who was examined as P. W. 10 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquestdars under Ex. P5, inquest panchanama. On requisition, the Civil assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, who was examined as P. W. 12, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 22-5-1993 and opined that the death was due to the bum injuries. The post-mortem report was marked as Ex. P7. P5, inquest panchanama. On requisition, the Civil assistant Surgeon at Government Hospital, who was examined as P. W. 12, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 22-5-1993 and opined that the death was due to the bum injuries. The post-mortem report was marked as Ex. P7. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, who was examined as P. W. 15, took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, and prepared a rough sketch in the presence of mediators. The panchanama about the scene of offence was marked as Ex. P6. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. On 27-5-1993, he arrested all the accused and they were remanded to judicial custody. After receiving the relevant documents, such as Forensic science Laboratory s report, etc. , and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. ( 6 ) TO substantiate the case of the prosecution, P. Ws. l to 15 were examined and Exs. Pl to P9 and M. Os. l to 3 were marked. In support of the defence, D. Ws. l and 2 were examined and Exs. Dl and D2 were marked. ( 7 ) HEARD Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri C. Praveen Kumar, across the bar, submitted that according to the prosecution, the deceased was necked out of the house on the first day of May, 1993, and the alleged incident took place on 21-5-1993 and thus there is a gap of twenty days and the alleged incident took place at the parents house of the deceased. It is his contention that according to Section 304-B ipc, immediately preceding death, there must be some cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 304-B EPC, and as for twenty days the deceased was at her parents house before her death, it cannot be inferred that the death was solely on account of the harassment meted out at her in-laws house, to attract the provisions of Sections 304-B IPC. His further submission is that there is evidence to establish that the deceased had quarrels with her parents , particularly with her mother, and the deceased might have committed suicide on account of the said quarrels and as such, it cannot be said that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 9 ) IT is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the dying declaration marked as Ex. P3 is a tutored one and as such the Court need not give any credence to the said dying declaration. It is further argued that the deceased was taken to the hospital immediately after the incident by her mother (P. W. 3) and the neighbour (P. W. 7), and during the course of transit, when P. W. 7 asked the deceased the reason for committing suicide, she has not stated anything about the involvement of her in-laws. But, while giving the dying declaration, she has narrated so many things against her in-laws i. e. , the appellants herein. Therefore, there is a conflict in her own statements i. e. , between her earlier statement given to P. W. 7, which is in the form of an oral dying declaration, with that of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate. When there are conflicting dying declarations, the Courts shall not accept any of those dying declarations to come to the conclusion that the accused are guilty, solely basing on the said dying declarations and therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. ( 10 ) PER contra, the learned Additional public Prosecutor submitted that there is absolutely nothing to hold that the dying declaration is solely basing on some sort of tutoring. The evidence clinchingly established that it is only P. Ws. 3 and 7 who rushed the deceased to the hospital and in the hospital none of the relatives of the deceased were present even to tutor her. The learned magistrate, who was examined as P. W. 13 has clearly stated that none were there at the time of recording the dying declaration from the deceased and the dying declaration is voluntary and therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the said dying declaration and the Court below has rightly held that the appellants are guilty of the said offence basing on the said dying declaration. It is his further submission that the evidence of p. Ws. l, 2 and 3 clearly and categorically establishes that there was harassment for dowry by the accused and therefore, the conviction recorded by the Court below shall be upheld. ( 11 ) IT is further argued that it is immaterial whether the deceased has committed suicide at her in-laws house or at her parents house. It is solely on account of the alleged harassment and being driven from out of the house by the accused, she is rather forced to stay in her parents house. The deceased was alleged to have driven from out of the house of her in-laws on the First May, 1993 and the alleged offence took place on 21-5-1993, and the gap cannot be said to be too long to infer that it is not soon before her death. ( 12 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional public Prosecutor, this Court had looked into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. ( 13 ) P. W. 1 is none other than the brother of the deceased. It is his evidence that the accused was harassing the deceased demanding furniture, gold and cash of rs. 20,000/-, and they were also ill-treating her stating that unless the said demands are met, she will not be taken to their house. It is also in his evidence that she was visiting their house and requesting her parents to meet the demands, but some how she was convinced to go back to her in-laws house. Finally, as the accused drove her away, she has left her in-laws house and came to their house in the month of may, 1993. ( 14 ) P. W. 2 is an agriculturalist of that village and P. W. 3 is the mother of the deceased. The evidence of these two witnesses is totally corroborated with the evidence of P. W. I. Out of these two witnesses, P. W. 2 is totally an independent witness and there is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the said evidence. ( 15 ) FURTHER, the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P. W. 13 is to the following effect:"my marriage with Suri Babu was performed in the year 1990. He is looking after me well. ( 15 ) FURTHER, the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, who was examined as P. W. 13 is to the following effect:"my marriage with Suri Babu was performed in the year 1990. He is looking after me well. But my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law started harassing me torturing me and physically and mentally the above persons caused me agony. They used to demand me to get more money, jewels etc. , from my parents. My parents are unable to provide the money or materials what they wanted more and more. At last they also taken away my son and kept him in their custody saying that he is suffering with fever etc. My parents prayed my parents-in-law and sister-in-law like anything. Even panchayats which were also held could not able to achieve the compromise. Day by day my parents-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing cruelty and started beating alleging me in filthy language and threatened me with dire consequences if I fail to satisfy their demands. At last I disgusted myself and wanted to get rid off from their clutches, hence poured kerosene and lit fire to my body. Today I wanted to die and leave this world in search of peace. My husband is unable to stop my parents-in-law and my sister-in-law. There is no fault of my husband. In helpless condition I decided to put an end to my life. " ( 16 ) FROM the above itself, definitely this court can come to the conclusion that there is harassment for dowry and the alleged suicide might be on account of the said harassment. But, there is other evidence on record entertaining a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether the suicide is solely on account of the alleged harassment only. It is the evidence of P. Ws. l and 3 that an extent of Ac. 2. 00 of land was given to the deceased at the time of marriage and the said land was sold by them, as evident from the evidence of d. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 17 ) D. W. 1 is one of the mediators, and is a relative of P. Ws. 1 and 3, who arranged the marriage of the deceased with the son of A1 and A2. According to him, it was agreed that the land bearing sy. 1 and 2. ( 17 ) D. W. 1 is one of the mediators, and is a relative of P. Ws. 1 and 3, who arranged the marriage of the deceased with the son of A1 and A2. According to him, it was agreed that the land bearing sy. No. 171/1 of Bhavanipet Sivar would be given to the deceased towards aadapaduchu katnam. But, subsequently P. Ws. 3 and 1, who are none other than the mother and brother of the deceased, respectively, sold the said land to one Mallapuram lakshmaiah, and the deceased was insisting p. Ws. 1 and 3 to give her the sale consideration, as she wanted to purchase some other land at Humnapur. But, P. Ws. 1 and 3 were postponing the same and in this regard there are quarrels between P. Ws. 1 and 3 on one side and the deceased on the other. ( 18 ) THE said evidence of D. W. 1 is supported by the evidence of P. W. 5. P. W. 5 is also an independent witness and is a resident of Bhavanipet. In the cross- examination, he had categorically stated that he heard the cries as "kaalindi, Kaalindi" and before those cries, he also heard some altercation between the deceased and her mother, P. W. 3. From the above, it is manifest that the deceased was not happy because of selling of land and not paying the sale consideration by her parents. On account of which, she was quarrelling with her mother and brother and that she was mentally disturbed. ( 19 ) ADMITTEDLY, at the time of committing suicide, the deceased was residing with her parents at Bhavanipet and she was demanding her parents to pay the sale consideration, and on the fateful day before committing suicide also she had an altercation with her mother. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased has committed suicide solely on account of the harassment meted out by her at the hands of her in-laws i. e. , A1 and A2. It is not known as to what prompted her to take such an extreme step. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as envisaged in criminal jurisprudence and hence appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is not known as to what prompted her to take such an extreme step. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as envisaged in criminal jurisprudence and hence appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the court below to the extent of convicting the appellants/a1 and A2 for the charge punishable under Section 304-B IPC, and the appellants/al and A2 are acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 304-B ipc. The bail bonds of the appellants/a1 and A2 shall stand cancelled.