Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 841 (AP)

Raju Singh v. State of A. P.

2008-09-29

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2008
JUDGMENT The appellants were tried in S.C.No.21 0 of 2004 on the file of the 4th Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The learned Judge on appreciation of the entire evidence found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer R.1. for seven years. Further the learned Judge directed the accused to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- each towards compensation to P.W.1, the father of the deceased. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage between A.1 and Sunayana [hereinafter called 'the deceased') took place on 14-02-2001 and at the time of marriage, the father of the deceased who was examined as P.W.1 , gave five Demand Drafts aggregating to Rs.50,OOOI-, household articles of Rs.30,000/-, 25 tulas of gold ornaments, scooter and silver articles towards dowry. The mar, catguts immediately consummated and a female child was born in the month of April, 2002. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the husband and her parents who were arrayed as A.1 to A.3 were demanding additional dowry of RS.50,000/-, Colour T.V. and 17 tulas of gold and the deceased was also complaining about the said demands to her father i.e., P.W.1, for which, he expressed his inability to meet the said additional demands. 4. While so, on 21-10-2003 at about 2 P.M., the deceased came to the house of PW.1 with her child. At that time, the deceased asked her brother who was examined as P. W 2 to dial the telephone to A.1 and when A.1 lifted the phone, the deceased asked her brother to go out of the room, closed the door and started speaking with A.1 in loud voice. After some time, she came out of the room. handed over the child to them and went inside the room stating that she was having head ache. As the deceased did not come out of the room, the mother entertained a doubt and accordingly, asked P.W.2 to see through the ventilator and when P. W. 2 saw through the ventilator, he found the deceased hanging to the roof. Immediately, P.W.2 lifted the deceased with the help of others and took her to the hospital where she was declared dead. Immediately, P.W.2 lifted the deceased with the help of others and took her to the hospital where she was declared dead. At about 7.15 P.M., on the same day on the basis of the report given by P.W.1, a case in Crime NO.353 of 2003 was registered by the Inspector (p.w.4) who issued F.I.R. to all the concerned. The said report is marked as EX.P.1 and F.I.R is Marked as Ex.P2. As the crime is dowry death, the Assistant Commissioner of Police. who is examined as P.W.5, took up investigation and recorded the statement of PW 1, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene. The observation report was marked as EX.P.3 and the rough sketch prepared by P.W.5 was marked as EX.PA The Mandai Revenue Officer (P.W.6) who came to the Hospital on requisition, conducted Inquest in the presence of the mediators. Thereafter, the body was sent for Post Mortem Examination and the Associate Professor, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabd (P.W.7), who conducted autopsy, issued Post Mortem Examination Report and the same was marked as Ex.P.9. The appellants were arrested on 24-1 0-2003 and after completion of entire investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed. 5. Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. P.Ws. 4 to 7 are official witnesses who spoke about the registration of crime, inquest and Post Mortem. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and brother of the deceased respectively and P.w.3 is the brother of P.w.1. 7. The entire case rests on the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Except the said evidence, there IS absolutely no other evidence to hold that the appellants were guilty of the offence with which they were tried. 8 The contention of Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. But, on that score alone, this Court is not inclined to reject the said evidence. But, a scan of the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly reveals that the said evidence is not trust worthy. According to the report given by P.W.1, the alleged harassment started since marriage whereas coming to the evidence, it is stated that the harassment started only after the birth of the child i.e., in the month of April, 2002. But, a scan of the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly reveals that the said evidence is not trust worthy. According to the report given by P.W.1, the alleged harassment started since marriage whereas coming to the evidence, it is stated that the harassment started only after the birth of the child i.e., in the month of April, 2002. According to P.W.2 the brother of the deceased, his father is not aware of the alleged harassment and he never informed about the said harassment as per the request of his sister i.e., the deceased. But, EX.P1 report reveals that as if P. W.1 knew about the alleged harassment by the time of giving the report. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that the alleged harassment started after the birth of the child whereas the evidence of P.w.3 is to the effect that the alleged harassment for additional dowry started six or seven months after the marriage. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws, 1 to 3, is not consistent and corroborative on material aspects, Though there is every likelihood of having discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no witness can speak in the same version as spoken to by the other witnesses, but, the recitals in Ex.P1 falsify their testimonies, A perusal of Ex.P. 1 clearly reveals that a false case has been foisted and because of that, this Court is giving importance to the said discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws, 1 to 3. 10. It is needless to observe that the law will be set into motion only after a crime is registered and in that event, when the report IS given, the police or the Investigating Officer registers it as FIR as provided under the provisions of Section 154 Cr. P.C. Therefore, F.I.R plays a vital role as to the genesis of the incident. After registering the F.I.R, in Crime No.353 of 2003, PW,1 has given another report, on which basis, the investigation started, But, it is strange to note as to what has promoted the police to suppress the said report, At this stage, it may be a part to refer the contents of Ex.P. 1 herein "Sworn Statement of Sri Sheetal Singh S/o Jaganath Singh age 50 years, Business, caste: Ludhi Chowris, Jummarath Bazar, Hyderabad. Father of the deceased on 22-10-2003 in Cr. No. 353103 of P.S. Shahinayat gunj, Hyderabad. Father of the deceased on 22-10-2003 in Cr. No. 353103 of P.S. Shahinayat gunj, Hyderabad. I sworn in the name of God, I tell all the truth nothing but truth. My daughter Sunayana Bai married one Raju Signh on February, 2001. Towards dowry, I fixed Rs. 50,000/- in Bank. I gave 25 to 30 tulas gold, 1 Y, kg silver, Chetak, domestic utensils, cooler, Fridge, Sofa bed cot, dining table and dressing table. They have a child. Since marriage the in laws of my daughter Padma Bai, Jagadish Singh, sister in law Varsa and husband Raju Singh demanding additional dowry of 17 tulas of gold and Rs. 50, 000/-. They all harassing her. Due to harassment she came to my house on 21-10-03. She told that for additional dowry they are harassing her. I told her I will convince to them by saying I went to market when I came back to my house my daughter tied with hanging. They would kill my daughters' daughter hence I request to hand over to me that baby. I request to take legal action against the persons who are responsible for the death of my daughter. Read over and explained to be true and correct hence I signed. Sd/xxx Sheetal Singh, (Deponent) Sd/xxx Sri Balaji S/o Jaganath Singh (dt. 22/1 0103) Sd/Recorded by me, Sd/-xxx G. V. Kumar M.R.O. Hyderabad. " 11. The said Ex.P.1 clearly falsifies the case of the prosecution, EX.P1 appears to have been drafted by a person who is conversant with law and thereby, it can be inferred that EX.P1 is brought into existence after due deliberations. Otherwise, words like "sworn in the name of God" etc" would not have been mentioned in the said report. Therefore, it can be said that EX.P1 falsifies the case of the prosecution and apart from that, a perusal of the contents of Ex,P.1 as well as the evidence of P,Ws,1 to 3, makes it clear that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and a false case has been filed taking advantage of the unnatural death of the deceased within a span of seven years from the date of marriage. 12, Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellants-accused vide Judgment dated 18th November, 2004 in S,C, NO.21 0 of 2004 on the file of the 4th Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad are set aside and the bail bonds, if any of the appellants-accused, shall stand cancelled .