HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.407 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/defacto Complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhongir, in S.C.No.317 of 2007 dt.17.06.2009, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent was married to the deceased on 10.02.2005 and at the time of marriage, a dowry of Rs.1,30,000/- was promised, however, Rs.27,000/- was not paid. For the reason of not paying remaining dowry, the 1st respondent harassed the deceased. Though, the defacto complainant who is the father of the deceased offered Rs.20,000/-, Accused No.1 did not receive the said amount and demanded the amount of Rs.27,000/-. PW1 found injuries on the body of his daughter at the time of her death and he expressed suspicion that for the reason of extracting Rs.27,000/- from him, the deceased was beaten to death.
2
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. Having framed charged under Section 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents/accused not guilty of the said offences on the following grounds.
a) Accused No.1 encouraged his wife to contest in Gram Panchayat elections as Ward Member, though she was unsuccessful, in the said circumstances, it cannot be said that A1 did not have any affection towards the deceased.
b) Though, PW1 claims that injuries were received, PW6-the doctor who conducted postmortem ruled out that there were any ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.
c) Though, several opportunities were given, the prosecution failed to produce the Investigating officer who conducted investigation.
d) Except stating that the accused was demanding the balance amount of Rs.27,000/- which was promised at the time of marriage, there is no other evidence to suggest any harassment by the accused.
3
e) Further, PWs.1 and 2 being interested witnesses, the only allegation of demand of Rs.27,000/- without corroboration cannot be believed.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to consider the injuries that were found on the deceased. The death occurred in the house of her in-laws and such death was on account of the harassment for Rs.27,000/- which was the balance of dowry. In the said circumstances, presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn and the accused failed to rebut the said presumption. For the said reasons, the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has to be reversed.
7. As seen from the evidence on record, the only allegation that was made by PWs.1 and 2 is that Accused No.1 was demanding an amount of Rs.27,000/- which was outstanding that was not given at the time of marriage. PW1 claims that he had offered Rs.20,000/-, but, A1 did not accept the same. The said allegation appears to be unnatural, for the reason of firstly, the deceased being encouraged by A1 to contest in the Gram Panchayath elections by incurring expenditure; secondly, there is no reason as to why A1 would not have accepted Rs.20,000/- when offered. 4 Further, the said offering of amount of Rs.20,000/- does not find place in Ex.P1-report that was given by PW1.
8. In Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala1 and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of acquittal, presumption is in favour of the accused. Unless there are glaring mistakes or any errors view of law is taken, the appellate Courts cannot interfere with the judgment of the acquittal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it has to be shown that there was miscarriage of justice and while dealing with the evidence, the Court committed an error and improperly considered and adjudicated the case.
9. In cases of appeals against acquittal, unless it is shown that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record or illogical or inferences drawn which are not plausible, the appellate Court shall not interfere with the findings of the trial Court. In the present case, except solitary allegation made by PW1 and PW2 that there was demand for Rs.27,000/-, there are no other allegations against the accused. It is natural that the close relatives who were parents and brothers tend to file complaint for the reason of death of their close ones. It is also natural that there 1 (2022) 8 SCC 440 2 (2022) 3 SCC 471 5 would be exaggeration of any incident which is attributable to the death of dear ones. However, in the background of the prosecution failing to prove that there were any ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and also in the background of Accused No.1 encouraging the deceased to contest Gram Panchayath elections, the only allegation of demand of Rs.27,000/- appears to incorrect.
10. For the aforesaid reasons there were no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:14.11.2022 tk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 OF 2010 Dt. 14.11.2022 tk