HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.459 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Medak, in S.C.No.334 of 2007, dated 18.03.2010, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the appellant and she married the appellant, five years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, on demand, Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid, but, only Rs.10,000/- was paid. Thereafter, the appellant started harassing the deceased for the remaining part of the dowry. One month prior to the death of the deceased, she made a phone call to her father-PW1 stating that the appellant is harassing for gold, for which 1 ½ Tulas of gold chain and ½ Tula ear studs were given. One month after presenting gold ornaments, appellant again started harassing the deceased. Further, the appellant intended to marry again for the 2 reason of the deceased not conceiving. PW1 asked the appellant to wait for another year and on failure of the deceased conceiving, he would perform appellant's marriage with another girl. Prior to her death, the deceased stayed for two days in her parents house and she informed the parents that the accused was harassing her. On the day of incident, PW1 received a phone call from one of the villagers and when he went there he observed that the deceased was hanging.
4. On the basis of the complaint given by PW1, case was registered for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PW1 to PW12 and marking Exs.P1 to P18 found the appellant not guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal code and accordingly acquitted. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that this appellant was guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for treating the deceased cruelly.
6. The crux of the allegations against the appellant is that there was a demand of additional dowry which PW1 failed to pay at the time of marriage. Secondly, the deceased was harassed for the reason of not conceiving.
3
7. In the statement of PW1-father of the deceased, PW2-brother of the deceased and PW4-uncle of the deceased, it is stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment for additional dowry and for the said reason 1 ½ tula of gold chain and ½ tula of gold ear studs were given. However, the harassment continued.
8. The learned Sessions Judge found that in fact the deceased had committed suicide for which reason, the appellant was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian penal code. No appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal.
9. The FIR was registered for the offence under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.. However, subsequently the section of law was altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation it was also found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the reason of this appellant demanding additional dowry.
10. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 though related to the deceased, the evidence since consistent cannot be disbelieved only for the reason of them being relatives of the deceased.
11. Admittedly, the deceased did not conceive for a period of five years after marriage for which reason the appellant was harassing her. Though, there is mention of demand of additional dowry, no 4 details were given either in the complaint or during the trial. However, the evidence of harassment cannot be disbelieved. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.
12. The offence is of the year 2007. The appellant was aged 26 years at the time of offence. Nearly, 15 years have passed by since the incident. In view of the allegations made against this appellant, at this point of time, this Court feels it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:03.11.2022 tk 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 459 OF 2010 Dt. 03.11.2022 tk