Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 473 (TS)

Kammari Venkatesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-22

K.SURENDER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, in S.C.No.246 of 2005, dated 22.02.2008, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that PW1 who is the father of the deceased filed complaint stating that he got his daughter married to the appellant, 8 months prior to the date of the incident i.e. in the month of April-2004 and as per the demand, a dowry of Rs.60,000/- cash, 8 ? Tulas of gold, Bajaj scooter and other household articles were given. Though his daughter was looked after well for a period of five months after the marriage, the appellant and the acquitted accused who is mother-in-law (A2) started harassing her for Rs.20,000/- to buy an Auto. The said demand of Rs.20,000/- was conveyed to him by the deceased daughter. PW1 went to the house of PW1 on 29.11.2004 and invited his daughter and son-in-law(A1) to his house, but on the said date his deceased daughter was only sent along with him. On the next day i.e. on 30.11.2004 his son-in-law (A1) along with A3 came to his house and demanded Rs.20,000/- for purchasing Auto. After two days i.e. on 02.12.2004, PW1 by presenting clothes sent deceased and A1 to their house. On 20.12.2004 at about 9 p.m. PW1 was informed that his daughter was dead. When they went to see the dead body, he found wounds on the body of his daughter. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged which is Ex.P1. On the basis of the complaint the police conducted investigation and charge sheeted the appellant herein, his mother (A2) and his brother-in-law (A3). 3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 304 B of IPC against all the three accused and consequent to trial, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B if IPC, however acquitted A2 and A3. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is any amount of improvement from the complaint to the deposition before the Court. During the course of investigation one S.Pratap Reddy (PW3) and another person by name Radha Krishna (PW4) were introduced to corroborate the allegations of demand of Rs.20,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is any amount of improvement from the complaint to the deposition before the Court. During the course of investigation one S.Pratap Reddy (PW3) and another person by name Radha Krishna (PW4) were introduced to corroborate the allegations of demand of Rs.20,000/-. PW3 is an interested witness and though PW4 was cited as witness having knowledge about the alleged demand, turned hostile to the prosecution case. The interestedness of PWs.1 to PW3 cannot be considered to sustain the conviction for the offence of dowry death. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was only 8 months prior to the alleged incident and admittedly there was a demand of Rs.20,000/-, prior to 20 days of her death for which reason the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shifts the burden on to the appellant to discharge his burden to say that he is not responsible for the suicide of his wife. In the said circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Judgment of Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with. 6. As seen from the evidence on record, the marriage of the appellant with the deceased took place 8 months prior to the incident and there is a specific statement that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- for buying the Auto. The said demand of buying an Auto was made by the other acquitted appellants also. As seen from the complaint-Ex.P1, PW1 says that the appellant and others started harassing his daughter for giving an amount of Rs.20,000/- to buy an Auto. However, though this appellant and A2 and A3 together went to the house of PW1, there is no allegation made by PW1 in complaint that there was any kind of altercation or force to give the amount. 7. Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code reads as follows; ?304-B:Dowry death 1[304B. Dowry death. However, though this appellant and A2 and A3 together went to the house of PW1, there is no allegation made by PW1 in complaint that there was any kind of altercation or force to give the amount. 7. Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code reads as follows; ?304-B:Dowry death 1[304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]? 8. It is the specific case of PWs.1, 2 and 3 that there was a demand by the appellant and others for purchasing of an Auto. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the demand of buying of Auto after six months of the marriage would amount to demand of dowry. 9. Definition Dowry under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Definition of `dowry?. In this act, `dowry? means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly: a. by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or b. by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security? has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 10. Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security? has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 10. As per the definition of Dowry, any demand made in relation to marriage would amount to demanding additional dowry, however, in the present case none of the witnesses PWs.1 to 3 speak about the demand of Rs. 20,000/- to be part of dowry which was given at the time of marriage. Though there was a demand of Rs.20,000/-, it does not fall within the definition of Dowry as the said demand does not relate to any kind of dowry which was to be given in relation to marriage. 11. There is no allegation of any beating or harassing specifically for Rs.20,000/- as seen from Ex.P1. However, though there is improvement during the course of trial before the Court wherein PW1 stated that accused No.1 threatened PW1 that if the amount of Rs.20,000/- is not paid he will see the end of the deceased, the said threatening is an omission in the earlier statement and proved through investigating officer. 12. It is not out of place to mention that in case of such deaths occurring in the family the witnesses tend to exaggerate or make allegations to implicate the husband. The said statements would be out of anger towards the husband for the reason of the death of the daughter or close relative. However, it is the duty of the Court to look into the case as a whole and separate the truth from exaggerations and embellishments. 13. In the present facts of the case the element of demand cannot be disbelieved. However, according to the witnesses the said amount was towards purchase of an Auto. It cannot be said there was a demand of dowry for which reason the offence under Section 304 B is not attracted. 14. However, the charge which was framed against the appellant describes that there was harassment for the reason of not providing Rs.20,000/- by PW1 for which reason the acts of the appellant attract an offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code. Though the charge is framed under Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code, clearly, there are allegations that the victim on demand for an amount of Rs.20,000/- subjected to cruelty. Though the charge is framed under Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code, clearly, there are allegations that the victim on demand for an amount of Rs.20,000/- subjected to cruelty. Accordingly, the appellant can be convicted though a charge under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code is not specifically framed. 15. For the reasons, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed off. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand closed.