Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 532 (AP)

Alakunta Yadaiah v. State of A. P.

2011-07-15

P.DURGA PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by III-Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), at N.T.R Nagar, L.B. Nagar, R.R.Dist, in S.C.No.351 of 1998, on 28.01.2002. 2. The appellant and his parents who are A2 and A3 were prosecuted for offence under Section 304-B IPC, alleging that the appellant has married the daughter of PW.1, by name Saidamma eight months prior to her death and at the time of marriage, PW.1 gave five tolas of gold, almirah, wrist watch, cycle, portable television and net cash of Rs.1,500/- for purchase of cot. After marriage, Saidamma joined the appellant at Srinivas Nagar, Jagadgiri Gutta and they led happy marital life for about two months and thereafter, the appellant along with his parents A2 and A3 started harassing the deceased for bringing net cash of Rs.15,000/- and a fan from her parents and harassing her, abusing her in filthy language. PW.1 and her husband held a panchayat in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and PW.1 promised and assured A1 that they will arrange the net cash of Rs.10,000/- on 06.08.1997 and sent the deceased with the accused No.1 and his sister Anjamma, and even then the accused did not satisfy and continued to harass the deceased and as there is no change in the attitude of the accused, the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to herself in her in-laws house at Srinivas Nagar, Jagadgiri Gutta on 03.08.1997 at 6.00 p.m and died on the spot. On receipt of the information, PW.1 and her husband had gone to Jagadgiri Gutta and lodged complaint with the police. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused and A2 and A3 for offence under Section 304-B IPC. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 304-B IPC against all the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charge, examined 11 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 and 2. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charge, examined 11 witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 and 2. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, by taking into consideration the said oral and documentary evidence, found Al guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and A2 and A3 were found not guilty and acquitted. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused No.1 has filed the present appeal. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 304-B IPC against the appellant/A1. 7. The counsel who has filed the appeal on behalf of the appellant did not represent the matter in spite of giving several opportunities and thereby, a non-bailable warrant has been issued for the production of the accused and on production, the accused has stated that he has no capacity to engage an advocate and a counsel may be appointed for arguing his case. Hence, Smt.Vasundhara Reddy.C was appointed as legal aid counsel to argue the appeal. 8. Smt. Vasundhara Reddy, legal aid counsel, has pleaded that except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence on record to establish the demand made by the accused for additional dowry and also harassment caused to the deceased by the accused. She further pleaded that even though PWs.2 and 3 were cited as mediators, they were also not aware of the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased but they came to know about the same only through PW.1 and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is not consistent with regard to their holding the mediation. The legal aid counsel has further pleaded that even though PW.1 has stated that the accused demanded Rs.15,000/- and a fan and started harassing her, but the manner in which the deceased was harassed was not spoken by her except generally alleging harassment of the deceased. The learned counsel further pleaded that since the prosecution could not establish the cruelty on the part of the accused prior to the death of the deceased, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 304-B of IPC. 9. The learned counsel further pleaded that since the prosecution could not establish the cruelty on the part of the accused prior to the death of the deceased, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 304-B of IPC. 9. The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that since the harassment has caused within the house of the in-laws of the deceased, there will not be any eye witness to the alleged incident, and PW.1 has come to know about the harassment through the deceased and as such the evidence of PW.1 has to be relied upon and the circumstantial evidence of PWs.2 and 3 supported the version of PW.1 with regard to the harassment and demand of Rs.15,000/- and a fan by the accused. She further pleaded that since the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage, and prior to her death there is harassment in connection with the demand for additional dowry, the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC, and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant and the said conviction does not warrant any interference by this appellate Court. 10. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased took place with A1 eight months prior to her death, and at the time of marriage, PW.1 and her husband has presented five tolas of gold, one almirah, one cycle, one portable television, wrist watch and other house-hold articles and also gave net cash of, Rs.1,500/- for purchasing a cot, and after the deceased joined the company of A1 at her in-laws house at Srinivas Nagar, Jagadgiri Gutta, they lived happily for two months and thereafter the accused No.1 and his parents started harassing the deceased for bringing additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- and a fan and abused her in filthy language and as she could not tolerate the harassment, she came to her parents house and informed the same to PW.1 and PW.1 held mediation in the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and they pacified the matter as PW.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- by 06.08.1997 and give the fan as demanded by them, and sent the deceased along with Al to his house. But before 06.08.1997, the accused again started harassing the deceased as such the deceased committed suicide on 03.08.1997 at 6.00 p.m. by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself at in-laws house at Jagadgiri Gutta. 11. In order to establish the charge under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to establish that: (i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relatives of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry. 12. In the present case, the deceased died due to burn injuries and eye witnesses PWs.4 and 5 have categorically stated that while they were playing gilli-danda in the ground near to the house of the accused at about 4 or 5 p.m., sister of A1 came out of her house crying “burning, burning”, and then they rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased Saidamma was burning in the house in the flames, and that they put out the flames by covering a bed sheet on Saidamma and made her to lie on the floor. Soon after, Saidamma died. But the defence counsel tried to establish that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased was accidental, by putting a suggestion to them that at the time they went into the house of the accused, they found kerosene stove burning with a milk vessel on it. In support of the said suggestion, -there is no other evidence to establish that the burn injuries sustained by the deceased is accidental. PW.6-the mediator for the scene of offence has stated that the inspector of police had seized a kerosene stove MO.1 from the scene of offence. The mediator for the inquest-PW.7 also opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. PW.8-Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted the inquest has also recorded the opinion of the mediators as the deceased died due to burn injuries. PW.10-the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased Saidamma had opined that the deceased died due to shock consequent to the burn injuries. PW.8-Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted the inquest has also recorded the opinion of the mediators as the deceased died due to burn injuries. PW.10-the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the deceased Saidamma had opined that the deceased died due to shock consequent to the burn injuries. Thus, the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased, Saidamma was due to burn injuries, and she committed suicide. 13. The appellant's counsel has not disputed about the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage and the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 3 also establish that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage. 14. The next point to be established by the prosecution is that soon before the death of Saidamma, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with demand for additional dowry. 15. According to the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs.15,000/- towards additional dowry and a fan and started harassing the deceased in that connection, and as she could not tolerate the harassment, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself. PW.1-the mother of he deceased has stated about the giving of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.15,000/-, one cycle, one television, one wrist watch and other house-hold articles at the time of marriage. PW.1-the mother of he deceased has stated about the giving of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.15,000/-, one cycle, one television, one wrist watch and other house-hold articles at the time of marriage. According to her, they lived happily for two months and thereafter A1 demanded her daughter to bring Rs.10,000/- more and started harassing and ill-treated her, and her daughter informed her about the demand made by A1 and she informed her daughter that she will give Rs.10,000/- and a ceiling fan after getting the chit amount and according to her, A1 came to her house to take her daughter back to his house and that her daughter did not agree to go with him stating that A1 was harassing her and that she asked A1 to bring his father or mother and then only she will send her daughter, but A1 brought his sister Anjamma along with her husband and she told A1 and his sister and brother-in-law not to harass and ill treat her daughter and she will give the money and fan after getting the chit amount and the said talks took place in the presence of Pochamma, Yadamma and Satyanarayana who are her neighbours, and that A1 and his sister and brother-in-law took the deceased with them after agreeing to her request and it happened about ten days prior to the death of her daughter. After ten days, she received information about the death of her daughter. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she got mentioned in Ex.P1 that she gave Rs.15,000/- to A1 prior to the date of marriage and also stated the same before the police and she admitted that her daughter visited her house several times after she went to the house of A1 and whenever her daughter came to her house, A1 used to come and take her to his house, and she used to stay in her house for two or three days, and that she stayed for ten days when she last visited her house. She admitted that she did not state before the police that her daughter came to her house and that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law together demanded Rs.15,000/-, as mentioned in Ex.D2. She did not raise any dispute before the elders about the demand of Rs.10,000/- and fan by the accused. She admitted that she did not state before the police that her daughter came to her house and that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law together demanded Rs.15,000/-, as mentioned in Ex.D2. She did not raise any dispute before the elders about the demand of Rs.10,000/- and fan by the accused. PW.1 has lodged the complaint with the police which was marked as Ex.P1 and in the said complaint she has not mentioned about payment of Rs.15,000 /- at the time of marriage as dowry but she has only stated about giving five tolas of gold, one wristwatch, one cycle and one portable television and household articles but paid Rs.1,000/- for purchasing of cot. It is also further stated that the accused and his parents demanded the deceased to get Rs.15,000/- and fan from her parents. When her daughter came to her house, D.Satyanarayana and Yadamma have pacified A1 and his sister and brother-in-law stating that Rs.10,000/- and fan will be sent by 06.08.1997, and thereafter the deceased committed suicide on 03.08.1997. Therefore, according to PW.1 and the Ex.P1, D.Satyanarayana and Yadamma has held mediation with regard to demanding of Rs.15,000/- and a fan by the accused and pacified A1 and his sister and brother-in-law stating that PW.1 will pay Rs.10,000/- and send fan by 06.08.1997 and made the deceased go along with the accused. 16. The said Satyanarayana was examined as PW.2 and he has stated that ten days prior to the death of Saidamma, PW1 and her husband told him that in-laws of their daughter Saidamma demanded her Rs.10,000/-. At that time, Yadamma and Pochamma, the members of Mahila Mandali were present, and one lady on behalf of in-laws also came and we told the parents of the deceased and the lady that came on behalf of the deceased Saidamma that they have to adjust among themselves and live. At that time none of the accused were present. PW.1 and her husband told that they will send the amount after receiving the chit amount and then they went away and later he came to know that Saidamma went to her in-laws house and after ten days thereafter Saidamma died by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he is an elder in that Basti and PW1 and her husband and a woman on behalf of the accused came to his house. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he is an elder in that Basti and PW1 and her husband and a woman on behalf of the accused came to his house. He came to know that the dispute arose with regard to money between the parties. The deceased Saidamma did not come to the house along with parents on that day. He do not remember the month, day or week on which PW1, her husband and another woman came to his house. 17. The other witness Pochamma-PW3 has stated that she is the General Secretary of Rani Rudramma Devi Mahila Mandali at Patigadda. She knows the deceased Saidamma, PWs.1 and 2 and the accused. Saidamma died about four years back due to burn injuries. About a week prior to the death of Saidamma, PW.1 carne to him and PW.2 and Yadamma and informed that the accused are demanding money and asked to tell them to adjust. Al and his sister Anjamma demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and fan. PW.1 has stated that she will get the chit amount within ten days and send the amount and the fan thereafter. So they asked A1 and his sister that PW.1 will send the amount and fan within ten days and asked them to go and Saidamma was taken to the house of the accused. After ten days they received phone call that Saidamma died. In the cross-examination she has stated that she did not remember the date and the day or month in which the dispute was raised before them. Herself, Yadamma and PW.2 went to the house of PW.1 for settlement of the dispute. She did not state before the police that A1 demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and fan in their presence at the time of dispute. Therefore, PW.2 has stated that PW.1 and her husband and a woman carne to his house for settlement of the dispute, but whereas PW3 has stated that they themselves have gone to the house of PW1 for settling the dispute. Even though PW.3 has stated that A1 though demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and fan in her presence, she admitted that she did not state the same before the police. Moreover, PW.2 has specifically stated in the chief examination itself that none of the accused were present when the discussion took place in his presence. Even though PW.3 has stated that A1 though demanded Rs.10,000/- cash and fan in her presence, she admitted that she did not state the same before the police. Moreover, PW.2 has specifically stated in the chief examination itself that none of the accused were present when the discussion took place in his presence. Therefore, PW.2 only stated about PW.1 informing about the demand made by the in-laws of the deceased Saidamma and he did not state that sister of A1 was present along with PW.1 at that time, whereas PW.3 has stated that A1 and his sister was present at the time of settlement of the dispute. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is not consistent with regard to their mediating the dispute between the accused and the deceased. Moreover the deceased was not present at the time of the said mediation to speak about the demand made by the accused and also about the harassment caused to her by the accused. Moreover, PWs.2 and 3 could not able to state the date, day or month in which the said mediation has taken place. As admitted by PWs.2 and 3, they are the neighbours of PW.1 and they have gone to the police station along with PW.1 at the time of lodging the complaint. Therefore, they are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution and they are not independent witnesses. Moreover, as observed above, their evidence will not establish the demand made by the accused for additional dowry and fan and about settling the dispute by mediation. 18. Except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to support the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased. PW .1, who is the mother of the deceased has only stated that her daughter informed her that the accused are demanding Rs.10,000/- and a ceiling fan. But she did not state that her daughter informed her about the harassment and ill treatment caused by the accused to her Moreover, except the general allegation of harassment and ill treatment, no specific instance of the accused harassing the deceased was spoken by PW.1. But she did not state that her daughter informed her about the harassment and ill treatment caused by the accused to her Moreover, except the general allegation of harassment and ill treatment, no specific instance of the accused harassing the deceased was spoken by PW.1. Moreover, PW.1 has admitted in the cross-examination that whenever her daughter used to come to her house, A1 used to come and take her back to his house; and it is not the case of PW.1 that her daughter used to come to her house as she could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused in connection with the demand for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and fan. Even if the sole evidence of PW.1 is accepted, it only establishes the demand made by the accused for payment of Rs.10,000/- and fan and it has not established the harassment caused by the deceased in connection with the demand for the said additional amount of dowry and a fan. 19. In Yallamanda Chand Basha and others v. State of A.P. (1) 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 113 (A.P.),