Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 248 (AP)

M. Mallikarjun v. State Of A. P.

2006-02-23

M.E.N.PATRUDU

body2006
( 1 ) THE appellant is the first accused in S. C. No. 366 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga reddy District. (1) The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 3 months. (2) The grievance of the appellant before me is that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly for the offence under dowry death. The trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant when there is no evidence to the effect that there is demand for dowry. (3) It is next contended that the deceased died due to suicide and there is no harassment for her to commit suicide. It is next contended that admittedly the accused was suffering with mental illness and the evidence of D. W. 1 and the contents of Ex. D-1 clearly established the same and ignoring the same the trial Court convicted the accused. It is vehemently contended that there is no offence under Section 304-B IPC, as the same is not made out. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the act of suicide is not the direct result of harassment or demand for dowry and the appellant is entitled for clean acquittal under Section 304-B IPC. It is further contended that there is no cruelty by the appellant to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 3 ) ADMITTED facts:1. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased is on 21-1-1997. 2. The death of the deceased is bum injuries. 3. It is a case of suicide. 4. Disputed facts: 1. Payment of dowry to the tune of rs. 1,25,000/- i. e. , Rs. 70,000/- hard cash and Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of jewellry, household articles etc. 2. Cruelty by the appellant 3. Panchayat through elders ( 4 ) COMMITMENT of suicide by the deceased being unable to bear the torture. It is a case of suicide. 4. Disputed facts: 1. Payment of dowry to the tune of rs. 1,25,000/- i. e. , Rs. 70,000/- hard cash and Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of jewellry, household articles etc. 2. Cruelty by the appellant 3. Panchayat through elders ( 4 ) COMMITMENT of suicide by the deceased being unable to bear the torture. ( 5 ) IN nutshell the case of the prosecution is that 10 months after the marriage the deceased died due to suicide. It is purely because of the maltreatment of the accused by demanding more dowry. When the deceased was admitted in the hospital, a report was lodged with the police and dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate and after the death of the deceased the case was investigated under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and charge-sheet was filed. 5. 01 The trial Court framed two charges - one under Section 304-B IPC against the first accused and second charge is under Section 498-A IPC against all the accused. 5. 02 The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 12 documents and 3 material objects. 5. 03 For defence, one witness is examined and one document is marked i. e. , ex. D-1. ( 6 ) EVIDENCE: p. W. 1 is the father of the deceased is aged about 65 years. He testified that the marriage of the deceased was held about 10 years prior to her death and he agreed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- at the time of the marriage and he paid Rs. 70,000/- cash and the said amount was deposited in the name of the deceased and appellant in secunderabad Bank jointly and he has given house hold articles towards the balance of rs. 55,000/ -. He also testified that 6 Tulas of gold ornaments and a necklace was also given to the deceased. He further deposed that for about two months the deceased and the accused had happy marital life and thereafter the accused starting demanding to withdraw the money from the bank to discharge his debts, thereby the f. D. R. was encashed and Rs. 10,000/- was given to the accused for discharge of the loan taken for the DCM van and the balance of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited on one F. D. R. and Rs. 10,000/- was given to the accused for discharge of the loan taken for the DCM van and the balance of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited on one F. D. R. and Rs. 10,000/- in another f. D. R. P. W. 1 further deposed that the deceased came for Sankranti to his house and informed him that she was ill-treated by the accused for money and he expressed his inability to pay any money. As the deceased refused to go to the house of the accused as she cannot bear the ill-treatment, he went to the house of A-3 along with village elders and elders spoken to A-3, who is the father of the appellant and 5 or 6 days later he learnt about the incident and he went to the Gandhi Hospital and questioned the deceased about the incident and she has narrated that the accused has ill-treated for money and therefore she committed suicide. Ex. P-1 is the report given by him. Exs. 2 and 3 are the F. D. Rs. In the cross-examination P. W. I stated that he received the information about the incident at 9. 00 a. m. , and he immediately proceeded to the hospital by about 10. 00 or 11. 00 a. m. , he and his family members reached the hospital. A-1 and A-2 were present in the hospital. He stated that the police were present in the hospital. But he could not give the timing. It was suggested to him that the deceased was taken to mental Hospital. He expressed his ignorance about it and deposed the accused did not tell him about the mental illness of the deceased. But he learnt that the deceased was taken to the hospital and he do not know the particulars. He denied all the suggestion with regard to the non-payment of dowry its deposit of Rs. 70,000/- etc. He also denied the suggestion of non-payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused for discharge of the debt. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide, as she is mentally ill. 6. 01 P. W. 2 is the mother of the (ieceased and wife of P. W. 1. She has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars. She has stated about the deposit of Rs. 70,000/- in the bank and giving of articles and gold worth Rs. 6. 01 P. W. 2 is the mother of the (ieceased and wife of P. W. 1. She has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars. She has stated about the deposit of Rs. 70,000/- in the bank and giving of articles and gold worth Rs. 55,000/- at the time of marriage. She also stated that the deceased and A-1 came and demanded money of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly the f D. R. was encashed and the amount was paid and the balance amount was re-deposited. She also deposed that one month alter the payment of Rs. 10,000/- the deceased came and requested the payment of money as the accused is demanding and they expressed their inability and along with elders they went at Panchayat and the aecused assured that they will look after the deceased property. She also stated that the deceased came 10 days prior to Sankranti festival and when she is at their house she learnt that A-1 received some burn injuries and immediately she returned back and one week later she learnt about the admission of (he deceased with injuries in the hospital. P. W. 2 is also testified that after going to gandhi Hospital on enquiry the deceased informed that the accused confined to put her to sufferance. In the cross-examination she has stated that the deceased came to their house six times after the marriage. She denied the suggestion about the ill-health of the deceased. She also denied the suggestion about the treatment of the deceased for mental illness. She also denied the suggestion that the deceased was never ill-treated by the accused. 6. 02 P. W. 3 is the independent witness who acted as Panchayat in the family dispute of the deceased and the accused. P. Ws. l and 2 and the deceased are known to him. He has clearly testified that two months after the marriage the deceased came and complained to her father that the accused was demanding for more money and he was present there and he advised P. W. 1 for discussion with the accused. Thereafter the accused came for discussion and himself narsimha, Ramdass and other elders discussed with them and advised the accused not to ill-treat the deceased. P. W. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- and the accused went away after compromise. Thereafter the accused came for discussion and himself narsimha, Ramdass and other elders discussed with them and advised the accused not to ill-treat the deceased. P. W. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- and the accused went away after compromise. The deceased was sent along with them and on enquiry P. W. 1 told that he paid Rs. 10,000/ -. P. W. 3 further deposed that one week prior to Sankranti festival the deceased came to their village and again informed about the ill-treatment of the accused for money. Two days prior to the Sankranti the deceased was informed that her husband received burn injuries. Subsequently, he came to know about the admission of the deceased in the Gandhi hospital with burns. In the cross-examination he stated that he was the Sarpanch of the village from 1988 to 1995 and P. W. 1 does not belong to his caste but he is an elder in the village only. He denied the suggestion with regard to the age of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was mentally ill and the accused did not ill-treat her. There is no cross-examination as far as the deceased informing him about the ill-treatment and the payment of rs. 10,000/- etc. 6. 03 Thus a combined reading of the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3 clearly established that the accused used to demand for more money and the deceased used to comply with the same. P. Ws. 4 and 5 are inquest panchayatdars. P. W. 6 is the photographer. P. W. 7 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. P. W. 8 is the autopsy doctor. Their evidence is formal. ( 7 ) DYING Declaration: p. W. 9 is the Judicial First Class magistrate. He recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 21-1-1997. He deposed that on 21-11-1997 he received the requisition to record dying declaration of the deceased, who was admitted in the Female Burns hospital and at 7. 25 p. m. , he recorded the statement of the deceased after satisfying with the mental condition of the deceased. the duty doctor certified that the deceased is un fit condition to give statement. Ex. P-10 is the dying declaration recorded by him. He deposed that at the time of recording dying declaration no one was present and he read over the statement and obtained the right thumb impression of the deceased. the duty doctor certified that the deceased is un fit condition to give statement. Ex. P-10 is the dying declaration recorded by him. He deposed that at the time of recording dying declaration no one was present and he read over the statement and obtained the right thumb impression of the deceased. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the parents of the deceased was present at the hospital when the dying declaration was recorded. It is necessary to verify the contents of Ex. P-10 at this stage. The deceased stated before P. W. 10 that she studied upto 10th Class. Her marriage was performed with A-1 and Rs. 1,25,000/- was given to the accused at the time of the marriage. The same fact was supported by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and deposit of the amount of rs. 70,000/- is established through Exs. P-2 and P-3. She also further stated that some disputes started and always some disputes continued. she further stated that her mother-in-law and husband used to quarrel with her. They used to pick up every often and it is dowry problem. Hence she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and at the tine her father-in-law was alone present and he was an old man and he was unable to do anything and the neighbour came and put off the flames, mother-in-law came after she was burnt and they were nobody else to save her. Ex. P-10 is recorded by P. W. 10 after following all the procedural requirements and there is no infirmity. In fact there is no cross-examination on this aspect and in this appeal there was no comment against it. The only argument is that the deceased did not specifically stated before P. W. 10 that the appellant and others used to demand more dowry and house-hold articles and used to harass her and thereby she committed suicide. I do not accept with this contention because she has clearly stated in the dying declaration and she has also stated that the appellant and his mother used to quarrel with her and there are some disputes. The contents of Ex. P-10 are fully corroborated with the evidence of P. Ws. I do not accept with this contention because she has clearly stated in the dying declaration and she has also stated that the appellant and his mother used to quarrel with her and there are some disputes. The contents of Ex. P-10 are fully corroborated with the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 before whom the deceased has made oral dying declaration when she was admitted in the bums ward at Gandhi Hospital that the accused have ill-treated her and therefore to unable the same she committed suicide. ( 8 ) THUS the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 10 and the contents of Exs. P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-10 are clearly established that the deceased was subject to ill-treatment and the accused used to harass her by demanding more dowry and unable to bear the same the deceased committed suicide within one year from the date of her marriage. On behalf of appellant, it is vehemently contended that the evidence of D. W. I and ex. D-1 must be considered by this Court. Perused the evidence of D. W. I. His name is Dr. Ashok Aleem Chandani. He is the Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the Institute of Government Hospital for mental Care, Erragadda. He deposed that on 22-5-1996 a patient by name Prameela, the deceased, was brought by her husband to the O. P. on complaint of beating people, abusing people, talking excessively, reduced sleep and the patient was admitted and she was absconded on the second day. He further deposed that there is partial response. Ex. D-1 is the case-sheet. He further deposed that the patient was diagnosed as suffering from acute psychotic episode probably psychosis mania. He also further stated that the treatment is required continuously. Even if the entire evidence of d. W. 1 is accepted, the only fact it is revealed is that the deceased was suffering with some psychotic problem. In the cross-examination d. W. 1 stated that he did not find any tendency in the deceased to commit suicide. He also stated that he cannot deny the fact that the acts of cruelty, ill-treatment or harassment to an individual will make the person depressed and commit suicide and it is another stage of mania. Therefore, from the evidence of D. W. 1 it is clarified that the deceased will commit suicide if there is harassment and cruelty towards her. He also stated that he cannot deny the fact that the acts of cruelty, ill-treatment or harassment to an individual will make the person depressed and commit suicide and it is another stage of mania. Therefore, from the evidence of D. W. 1 it is clarified that the deceased will commit suicide if there is harassment and cruelty towards her. ( 9 ) IN this case the deceased has clearly stated in Ex. P-10 that the deceased used to quarrel with her and demand of dowry and that is the reason for her to commit suicide. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, in my considered opinion the acts of the appellant are clearly attracting the provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A ipc. The trial Court has given correct finding. ( 11 ) THERE is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings arrived by the trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant is confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.