HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.106 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy, in S.C.No.398 of 2006 dt.31.12.2009, convicting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of seven years.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased were married on 23.04.2004 and at the time of marriage Rs.60,000/- cash and other household articles were given as dowry. Both of them lived together happily. However, six months after marriage, the appellant and the other acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. There was 'panchayat' that was held and on the advice of elders, the deceased was treated well, however, again the deceased was subjected to cruelty by demanding the amount of Rs.20,000/- inspite of the deceased being pregnant. For the reason of the deceased being beaten as to why she did not abort her pregnancy, 2 the deceased went to her parents house for three weeks. Thereafter, the appellant went to his in-laws house and beat the deceased and demanded the amount of Rs.20,000/- and stated that if Rs.20,000/- is not given, he would apply for divorce.
4. On 26.03.2006, PW1 lodged a complaint stating that the deceased was missing from the house and also narrated that there were differences between this appellant for the reason of not providing additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The body of the deceased was found in a well, as such, a second complaint-Ex.P2 was given by PW1 stating that they found a cell phone book and in the cell phone book she has written the cause of her death as her husband. On the basis of the evidence collected, the Police filed charge sheet against this appellant and four others for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having framed the charges under Section 304-B of IPC, examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 on behalf of prosecution and after consideration of evidence convicted the accused under section 304-B of the IPC.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the deceased was in matrimonial house when she committed suicide and she was staying in the house since one month prior to her 3 committing suicide and except stating that 3 days prior to her committing suicide, the appellant has gone to the house and threatened to give divorce if the amount of Rs.20,000/- is not given, there is no evidence to suggest that he had abetted suicide.
7. He relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab1 and argued that there should be nexus between the death and the cruelty alleged by the witnesses. Unless such proximity is shown, there cannot be conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal code.
8. He also relied upon the Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in G.M.Ravi @ G.Purushotham v. State of A.P.2 and Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab3 and argued that when there is no personal knowledge about the harassment, the Court cannot rely upon such hearsay evidence to infer harassment.
9. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri S.Sudershan submits that Ex.P3 is suicide note which was produced by the prosecution at the time of trial. No reasons are given by the Investigating Officer as to why he did not collected Ex.P3. However, PW1 has marked Ex.P3-suicide note during the 1 AIR 2001 SC 2828(1) 2 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 344 (A.P.) 3 (2009) 16 SCC 35 4 course of his evidence and also identified the signature and writings of the deceased. The very incident of the appellant beating the deceased, 3 days prior to her suicide is enough to fall within the provision of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. For the said reasons, he prayed the Court to confirm the conviction.
10. In the complaint and also evidence of witnesses PW1 to PW4, the only allegation is that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- by the appellant and others. Though the deceased was carrying 5th month pregnancy, she was sent to her matrimonial house and there she committed suicide. Though the witnesses claimed that the deceased was pregnant, the Postmortem report does not indicate that she was carrying pregnancy. The incident which occurred, three days prior to the death regarding beating and demand of Rs.20,000/- would amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code. However, the solitary incident as spoken to by the witnesses is not sufficient to infer that it lead to forcing the deceased to commit suicide.
11. The suicide note-Ex.P3 which was introduced during the course of trial was not relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason of not collecting the said suicide note during the course of investigation. Even according to the phone book that 5 was seized near the well where the deceased was found, in which it was written that the cause of death was her husband. When there is a mention regarding her husband in the phone book, the detail note Ex.P3 filed by the prosecution creates a doubt regarding the note being genuine.
12. It is not known as to why the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was carrying pregnancy when no such evidence was found during the course of postmortem. Though the witnesses alleged that the deceased was beaten, no such ante mortem injuries are found in the Postmortem report. The solitary incident as narrated by the witnesses, 3 days prior to her committing suicide, in my opinion, would not be enough to drive a woman to commit suicide. However, for the reason of there being a demand for additional dowry, apparently, the deceased was subjected to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A. For the said reason, the conviction under Section 304-B of Indian Penal code is set aside. However, the appellant/A1 is convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months imprisonment.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed convicting the appellant/A1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code 6 and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The conviction recorded by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy, in S.C.No.398 of 2006 dt.31.12.2009, convicting the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off. Further, the concerned court shall secure the presence of this appellant and sent him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:16.11.2022 tk 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 106 OF 2010 Dt. 16.11.2022 tk