Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 498 (AP)

Meeta Sivaraju v. State of A. P.

2012-06-07

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

body2012
JUDGMENT The 151 accused in Sessions Cases No. 181 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kadapa, who was convicted of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of ten years, is the appellant herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Girija was given in marriage to A-1, who was originally a resident of Dorappali Village Dhone Mandal. A-2 and A3 are relatives of A-1 and residents of Veldurathi. They resided at Kadapa for one year and lived as Masons. The marriage of the deceased was performed in December, 1999 by giving some dowry and articles. A-1 lived happily for a period of one year and thereafter started harassing the deceased to get a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from P.W.1, her father. He was not sending the deceased to the house of P.W.1, A-2 and A-3 also encouraged A-1 and harassed the deceased. They did not allow the deceased to speak with P.W. 1. Whenever the relatives of the deceased visited the house of A-1, they expressed dissatisfaction. While so, on 6-1-2002 there was a quarrel between A-1 and the deceased and thereafter the deceased committed suicide. The information was given to the parents and a case was registered on a complaint of P.W.1. A-2 also gave a complaint about the death of the deceased. The inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and was sent for post mortem examination. The accused was charged for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and driving the deceased to commit the suicide. All the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC. After appearance of the accused, necessary charges were framed. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and marked Exs.-1 to P-19 and M.Os. 1 to 8. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined but got marked Exs. D-1 to D-4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found all the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and acquitted them. However, the appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 304B IPC and accordingly convicted. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 4. D-1 to D-4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found all the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and acquitted them. However, the appellant herein was found guilty of the offence under Section 304B IPC and accordingly convicted. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that tile prosecution evidence with regard to the harassment and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC having been not believed by the Court below, the lower Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC when there is no proof that immediately prior to the death, the deceased was subjected to harassment in order to draw a presumption and convicted the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the theory of prosecution that Rs. 50,000/- was demanded as additional dowry is highly improbable and unbelievable considering the evidence of P.W. 1. It is also contended that the material witnesses on the side of the prosecution are not examined and inferences drawn by the Court below are not valid. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction of the appellant. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is legal and sustainable? 6. Point: This being a case whereunder the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, it cannot be doubted that the prosecution has to prove that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry by the husband or his relatives, under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act a presumption can be drawn, but however, it is a rebuttable presumption. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC found that the deceased was harassed for additional dowry and it is not the case of the prosecution at any stage that the deceased was subjected to any other cruelty in the hands of A-1 and consequently recorded a finding of acquittal for an offence under Section 498-A IPC, against which there is no appeal. 7. 7. In order to appreciate the prosecution case, it is useful to refer to the evidence of P.W. 1 which discloses that the marriage was preformed with A-1 in December, 1999 at Pathabugga village of Dhone Mandal and for one and a half years A-1 and his wife resided at Dorapalle village and six months prior to death, they shifted to Kadapa. He claims to have given cash of Rs. 30,000/- and a gold chain. According to him, his wife is blind and the couple lived happily for a period of three months after the marriage and thereafter there was a harassment for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. This information is said to have been given by his daughter when he visited the house of the deceased. He also claims to have gone along with China Rangaswamy (P.W. 2) prior to the death and she ha also said to have informed the demand for additional dowry and harassment. This was said to be 15 days prior to the death of the deceased. He also claims that his brother-in-law (P.W. 4) informed on 6-1-2002 that A-1 informed him that the deceased has become a liability and when that liability would end. The deceased said to have committed suicide on 7-1-2002. In cross-examination, he stated the marriage was arranged by his elder brother Posanna as he married the paternal aunt of A-1. A-1 is said to be having 5 acres of agricultural land. According to him, as he could not make arrangements for the marriage on his own and his brothers are being uneducated, he asked his elder brother Posanna to make arrangements for the marriage of his own and his brothers are being uneducated, he asked his elder brother Posanna to make arrangements for the marriage of his daughter. The marriage is said to have been performed at Temple and he claims to spent Rs. 70,000/- or Rs. 80,000/-. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no proof that the said amount was available with P.W. 1 and in the earlier statement before the MRO the presentation of Rs. 30,000/- was not stated. So also the information about the demand was given to him in March, 2000 when he visited the house of the deceased and though having capacity to meet the demand he did not meet the said demand by the accused. 30,000/- was not stated. So also the information about the demand was given to him in March, 2000 when he visited the house of the deceased and though having capacity to meet the demand he did not meet the said demand by the accused. According to him, six or eight months after the marriage, his daughter stayed in his house for one and a half months for treatment and A-1 visited the house twice or thrice and he told him that she has to be treated again and when A-1 visited one month later, he asked him to bring his father and brother as he was not looked after his daughter properly. 9. Therefore, this evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that the deceased stayed in the house of P.W.1 for treatment and she was not continuously staying and this statement does not reflect that she was brought to his house as a consequent of ill-treatment for not meeting the illegal demand for dowry. He further stated after the deceased shifted to Kadapa the deceased did not attend to any work and the deceased was of fair complexion whereas the appellant is of black complexion. He denied the suggestion that the deceased came to his house with a dislike against the appellant and in spite of the requests, she did not join. Therefore, when there is no proof that the appellant was presented with gold jewellery or the amount of Rs. 30,000/- at the time of marriage, the question is as to whether there is any possibility of demanding additional dowry. It is to be stated as a repetition that the deceased did not come to the house of P.W. 1 as a consequent of the harassment or ill-treatment for the illegal demand of dowry three months after the marriage and on the other hand the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that the deceased came for treatment. 10. The evidence of P.W.2, who is owner of the house where the deceased and accused lived, disclosed that both of them lived happily. P.W. 3 is said to be the person who is said to have gone to the house of A-1 and he stated that whenever he visited the house she was said to be frightened and informed that A-1 demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. P.W. 3 is said to be the person who is said to have gone to the house of A-1 and he stated that whenever he visited the house she was said to be frightened and informed that A-1 demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He claims 15 days prior to the incident, P.W.1 came and both of them went and enquired with the deceased who gave the complaint. 11. It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W. 3 does not disclose that on the complaint given by P.W. 1, they have either questioned the appellant or any of the family members. He is not even an elder for the marriage and he does not say that anytime before the information given by P.W.1 he visited the house of the deceased being a relative. 12. P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 and he resides at Dhone and three months after the marriage, the demand was said to have been met and this was informed to him when he went to invite the deceased for his marriage. He is said to be aged about 27 years and he claims to have gone again in September, 2001 to invite the appellant and his wife for a function in his house and at that time A-1 informed that he will not attend the function unless his demand was complied by P.W. 1. 13. This evidence of P.W.4 appears to be unnatural. When the deceased and appellant have not attended the marriage, again going to them and inviting for a function and the accused informing that the money should be paid by P.W. 1 appears to be a development. After all, he is aged about 27 years and he is not a man, who can influence or make P.W.1 to pay the money. Except the evidence of these three witnesses there is absolutely no evidence of any neighbour or any of the other family members about the harassment. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he has married again and there was a quarrel between his two wives. The important witness to speak about the arrangement of the marriage and the dowry or any expenditure which was said to have been paid by P.W. 1 can only he spoken by his brother Posanna and he was not at all examined by the prosecution. The important witness to speak about the arrangement of the marriage and the dowry or any expenditure which was said to have been paid by P.W. 1 can only he spoken by his brother Posanna and he was not at all examined by the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is quite clear that he did not make the arrangements for the marriage and everything was looked after by his brother. There are material omissions in the earlier statements recorded by the M.R.O. and also the investigating officer. As per the evidence of P.W. 9, P.W.1 did not state before him about the expenditure of Rs. 70,000/- or 80,000/-, giving of dowry of Rs. 30,000/- and jewellery. His evidence also shows that P.W. 1 did not state before him that the deceased informed on telephone about the harassment and P.W.1 also did not state before him that 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, he along with P.W. 3 went to the house of the appellant and the deceased informed about the demand for Rs. 50,000/-. Even P.W. 3 did not state before him that the deceased informed him about the demand for Rs. 50,000/-. Even as per the evidence of P.W. 10, who is Investigating Officer, the above material particulars were not disclosed by the witnesses and the ground of harassment of the deceased for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- prior to the death or proximate to the date of death is highly doubtful. 14. It is to be noted that the evidence on record does not show that there was any personal demand by the appellant from P.W.1 or other family members for the alleged additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. As can be seen from the evidence on record and particularly considering the statement recorded by P.W. 9, there are material developments with regard to the demand for dowry and the timing of the dowry demand. The capacity of P.W. 1 to pay such amount is also doubtful. It really the demand has started three months after the marriage and continued for a period of two years there is no reason as to why the matter was not placed before the elders or before the police. The capacity of P.W. 1 to pay such amount is also doubtful. It really the demand has started three months after the marriage and continued for a period of two years there is no reason as to why the matter was not placed before the elders or before the police. Though P.W. 1 states that he requested the parents of A-1 to be brought after the deceased came to his house and stayed for long time, there is nothing on record to show that the parents of the appellant came and there was any complaint to them or assurance about the conduct of A-1. Therefore, from all the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.1, 3 and 4 and the prosecution theory that there was harassment for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be improbable and cannot be accepted. The appellant is entitled for a reasonable benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.