Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 717 (TS)

Peddannagari Anjaiah A1 v. State Of AP.

2022-11-11

M.G.PRIYADARSINI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Accused No.1 in S.C.No. 153 of 2010 preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the IX Additional Sessions Judge at Kamareddy, dated 22.11.2011. A.1, along with A.2 to A.7, was charged for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC for allegedly subjecting the deceased-Laxmi @ Devavva to cruelty demanding additional dowry and causing her death within seven years of her marriage with A.1. Through the said judgment, A.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, A.2 to A.7 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and were acquitted of the said charge. 2. The gist of the prosecution case, leading to the conviction of the appellant-A.1, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the younger brother of the deceased. A.1 is the husband, A.2 & A.3 are the parents-in-law; A.4 & A.5 are the brother-in-law & co-sister of the deceased. A.6 & A.7 are the brother-in-law and sister of A.1. Marriage of deceased with A.1 took place eleven months prior to the date of incident. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 presented Rs.30,000/- out of agreed amount of Rs.45,000/- towards dowry apart from gold and other articles to A.1 with a promise to clear the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- within six months. After the marriage, the deceased joined her husband and her parents-in-law, A.1 to A.3 apart from her brother-in-law, A.4, co-sister, A.5, sister of A.1 and her husband, who are A.7 & A.6 respectively. Fifteen days after the marriage, the accused started harassing her on the demand of balance amount of dowry and not allowed her to visit her parents’ house and therefore, the matter was placed before the village elders, P.Ws.3 & 4, who advised the accused not to harass the deceased. However, the accused continued to harass the deceased and when the marriage of brother’s son of P.W.1 took place, the accused did not allow the deceased to attend the said marriage. On 08.03.2007, at about 23:00 hours, all the deceased pressurized her for bringing the remaining dowry amount and unable to bear the tortures from the accused, the deceased committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison. On 08.03.2007, at about 23:00 hours, all the deceased pressurized her for bringing the remaining dowry amount and unable to bear the tortures from the accused, the deceased committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison. On 09.03.2007, at 13:30 hours, P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1 complaint with the police, on the basis of which, P.W.10, the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Nagireddypet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 21 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and issued Ex.P. 7, FIR, and forwarded the same to all concerned. He recorded the statements of witnesses, sent requisition to the Tahsildar, P.W.9, who held inquest panchanama under Ex.P.5 in the presence of P.Ws.7 & 8 and recorded their statements and sent the dead body for Post-Mortem Examination. P.W.10 drawn the rough sketch under Ex.P. 6 in the presence of panchas i.e., P.W.8 and L.W.11. P.W.6, the medical officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 10.03.2007 and sent the viscera for FSL examination. After recording statement of P.W.2, P.W.10 handed over the case to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Kamareddy, P.W.11. During the course of investigation, Police arrested the accused, recorded their confessional statements and remanded them to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and on receipt of FSL report under Ex.P.3, P.W.11 filed the charge sheet against all the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC before the concerned magistrate. On committal by the magistrate, necessary charges were framed against all the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the defense, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-A.1 as indicated above while acquitting A.2 to A.7 of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, by way of present appeal, A.1 is before this Court. 4. On behalf of the defense, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-A.1 as indicated above while acquitting A.2 to A.7 of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, by way of present appeal, A.1 is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel representing the appellant-A.1 has vehemently argued that although the trial Court has rightly acquitted A.2 to A.7 holding that the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 have not attributed any specific overt acts and no specific incident has been mentioned against them, erred in convicting the appellant-A.1 on the same set of evidence merely because A.1 is the husband of the deceased. The prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the A.1 as well beyond any reasonable doubt. Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the nature of harassment meted out to the deceased was not allowing her to visit his house, in connection of which, matter was placed before the elders i.e., P.Ws.3 & 4 and therefore, the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC cannot be said to be attracted. None of the witnesses deposed that the dowry was paid as per the demand of any of the accused and therefore, the allegation that the appellant demanded and harassed the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- cannot be believed. It is contended that in the absence of any specific allegation that the appellant-A.1 subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment on account of additional dowry soon before the death of the deceased, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant is unsustainable under law. Therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while trying to sustain the judgment of the trial Court, contended that the evidence of important witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 4 is cogent and consistent as to the harassment of additional dowry meted out to the deceased and therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference. 6. 1 to 4 is cogent and consistent as to the harassment of additional dowry meted out to the deceased and therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference. 6. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant-A.1 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the conviction, as recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside or modified? 7. P.W. 1 is the father and P.W.2 is the younger brother of the deceased. The independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 3 & 4 are the elders of the village before whom, the matter was allegedly placed for harassing the deceased by the accused. P.W.5, another independent witness, who knows the accused and deceased, did not support the version of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. P.W.6 is the medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, who deposed that on 10.03.2007 on receipt of requisition from the Police, he conducted autopsy over the deceased body, collected viscera and sent the same for FSL report for examination and he gave opinion that the death was due to consumption of the insecticide poison and gave certificate to that effect under Ex.P.4. P.Ws.7 & 8 deposed about the inquest panchanama held by the police over the body of the deceased in their presence and their signing on the panchanama under Ex.P.5. P.W.9, Talsildar of Nagireddipet, deposed about his conducting inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased on 09.03.2007. P.W.10 is the ASI of Police, who speaks about his registering the case and issuing FIR. P.W.11 is the investigating officer, who speaks about his conducting further investigation, recording the statements of witnesses, arresting the accused and filing of charge sheet against the accused. 8. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are important witnesses basing on whose evidence, the trial Court has recorded the conviction and sentence against the appellant. P.W.11 is the investigating officer, who speaks about his conducting further investigation, recording the statements of witnesses, arresting the accused and filing of charge sheet against the accused. 8. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are important witnesses basing on whose evidence, the trial Court has recorded the conviction and sentence against the appellant. P.W.1 deposed about his performing the marriage of deceased with A.1 eleven months prior to the date of incident, his accepting to pay the dowry of Rs.45,000/- and giving only Rs.30,000/- cash and agreeing to pay the remaining cash within six months. After the marriage, the deceased joined her husband and other accused and that fifteen days later, the accused started harassing her demanding for balance amount of dowry and not allowed her to visit his house and as such the matter was placed before the elders, P.Ws.3 & 4, who advised the accused to look after well and not to harass the deceased. He further deposed that the accused did not allow the deceased to attend his brother’s son marriage on the pretext that she has to attend another marriage of their relatives. He deposed that unable to bear the torture of the accused, she died consuming pesticide. Thus, absolutely no specific instance or nature of harassment, much less any harassment suffered by the deceased soon before her death was spoken to by P.W.1 in order to attract the offence under Section 304-B IPC against the appellant. Similar is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the younger brother of the deceased and he too deposed that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- and they did not allow her to attend her relative’s marriage and therefore, she consumed insecticide poison and committed suicide on 08.03.2007. The independent witness, P.W.3 deposed about the panchayat being conducted by him along with P.W.4 at the house of accused and their pacifying the accused stating that the balance of Rs.15,000/- will be given to them after Ugadi i.e., after harvesting the crops. He too did not depose any specific overt act of the appellant regarding harassment meted out to the deceased, much less any incident soon before the death of the deceased. So is the evidence of P.W.4. Thus, as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide as she was not allowed to attend her relative’s marriage. He too did not depose any specific overt act of the appellant regarding harassment meted out to the deceased, much less any incident soon before the death of the deceased. So is the evidence of P.W.4. Thus, as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide as she was not allowed to attend her relative’s marriage. As observed above, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is vague, omni bus and no specific overt acts are made against the appellant in connection with the harassment meted out to the deceased. These witnesses in one sweeping statement have stated that all the accused have harassed the deceased. The trial Court has acquitted A.2 to A.7 holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them, however, convicted the appellant though the evidence against all the accused is common. Even though the appellant stands on the same footing as that of the other accused, merely because he is husband, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Except for certain bald statements made by P.Ws.1 to 4 alleging that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death on the ground of remaining dowry amount of Rs.15,000/-, there is no other evidence to prove that the deceased committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so as to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 35 , held as under:- “20. …A conjoint reading of Section 133B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. ….The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. ….The expression “soon before” is very relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led in by the prosecution. “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. …There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.” 9. As discussed above, the analysis of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any harassment by the appellant soon before the death of the deceased. Even the alleged incident of not allowing the deceased to attend her relative’s marriage is remote in time and that there is no existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. As already observed, the trial Court, on the same set of evidence, has chosen to acquit A.2 to A.7, whose case is no better than of A.1. This Court agrees with the trial Court that the evidence against A.2 to A.7 is insufficient to convict them and, in the opinion of this Court, it is the same against A.1 as well. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC against the appellant-A.1 as well in order to convict and sentence him for the said charge and hence, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by IX Additional Sessions Judge at Kamareddy in S.C. No. 153 of 2010, dated 22.11.2011 against the appellant-A.1. The appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and he is acquitted of the said charge. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by IX Additional Sessions Judge at Kamareddy in S.C. No. 153 of 2010, dated 22.11.2011 against the appellant-A.1. The appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and he is acquitted of the said charge. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged. Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.