THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1031 OF 2011
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the judgment dated 23.04.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.128 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement dated 08.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet. 3 The facts, in brief, as unfolded from the case of the prosecution, are that the marriage of the first petitioner was performed with the daughter of P.W.1 by name Gouramma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') three years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- cash, three tulas of gold and other household articles worth Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner. The deceased and the first petitioner lead the marital life happily for seven months and 2 thereafter first petitioner and his relatives started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. Out of their wedlock, the deceased gave birth to a male child. Even thereafter the petitioners continued their harassment. P.W.1, with a fond hope that his daughter's life will be happy, gave further amounts to the petitioners. After the deceased gave birth to male child, the second petitioner herein went to the house of P.W.1 to bring back the deceased to their house. At that time also the second petitioner demanded P.W.1 for additional dowry. The deceased went to the house of A.6 from where she telephoned to her father P.W.1 asking him as to why he did not send Rs.10,000/- as demanded to the petitioners and complained that the petitioners are harassing her for that amount. While so, on 03.11.2005 at 9.00 a.m. the deceased went to caster land of the village and there consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide. P.W.6 noticed the deceased struggling for life and informed the same to the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners shifted the deceased to the hospital of P.W.12 where she was declared as brought dead. Basing on the above factual background, the criminal law was set into motion and a case in Cr.No.47 of 2005 for the offence under 3 Section 304-B IPC. After completing the procedure laid down by law, the police filed the charge sheet against six accused including the petitioners herein being A.1 and A.2. 4 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. On behalf of the defence, though no oral evidence was adduced, some medical prescriptions were marked in the form of Exs.D.1 to D.6. 5 After analysing the entire material available on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, found the accused Nos.3 to 6 not guilty of the offence under Section 304- B IPC, however found the petitioners herein who are A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners (A.1 and A.2) preferred Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, and the learned appellate court by reappreciating the entire evidence available on record, held that 4 the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners for the charged offence and accordingly dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. As stated supra, aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. questioning the legality of the said judgment.
6 The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased is consistent with the case of the prosecution. Their evidence, in unequivocal terms, goes to show the harassment meted out by the petitioners herein towards the deceased for additional dowry. P.W.1 explained the manner in which he had to meet the illegal demands of the petitioners. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on coming to know about the death of the deceased he went to the house of the petitioners and found the dead body of the deceased at which time none of the accused was present. P.W.2's evidence further goes to show that the deceased used to inform to her that the first petitioner used to burn her with cigarette. P.Ws.1 and 2 though admitted that there was a panchayat after the death of the deceased but they denied the suggestion that as the accused refused to give Rs.2.00 lakhs, they foisted the false case. The evidence of P.W.4 5 who is the brother of the deceased also deposed about the harassment meted out by the petitioners. P.Ws.5 to 10 and 13 deposed about the giving of dowry and performance of marriage of the deceased with the first petitioner and also about the harassment. The case of the defence was that due to the unbearable stomach ache, the deceased consumed poison which appears to be improbable and unbelievable.
7 The very crucial piece of evidence to be noted from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was that one day before her death, the deceased asked P.W.1 about the demand of the accused for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and that they accused are harassing her on that ground. This itself is sufficient to draw an inference / presumption that the accused have harassed the deceased for additional dowry and that not being able to bear with the such harassment the deceased committed suicide. Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
113 B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
8 Section 304-B of IPC reads as follows:6
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.
9 In the light of the above two sections, this court has no other option but to draw an inference that since the death of the deceased was within seven years from the marriage between the deceased and the first petitioner and soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the petitioners have committed the charged offence. The defence could not rebut the presumption under the above section of law. Hence it can safely be said that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
10 The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the principle laid down in a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.A.No.327 of 2003 dated 30.06.2005 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1 But the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case since 1 AIR 2015 SC 2081 7 there was a finding in that case that there was no harassment on account of demand of dowry immediately prior to the death. Here in the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would amply goes to show that the deceased informed them about the harassment by the petitioners for additional dowry one day prior to her death.
11 Similarly, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K.Amarnath Vs. State 2 and Dayyala Bixapathi Vs. State of A.P. 3 also have no application to the facts of the present case since the death of the deceased in those cases was suspected to be unnatural. Here in the instant case, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide which is an unnatural and that death took place within seven years of the marriage and that there was lot of evidence available on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners for additional dowry. 12 For the foregoing discussion, this criminal revision case is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 2 2007 LawSuit (AP) 523 3 2005 SCC OnLine AP 1245 8 13 However, coming to the quantum of sentence, the courts below have imposed sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment against the petitioners. But, as seen from the record, the offence is of the year 2005 and the petitioners have been roaming around the courts for all these years. Keeping in view of the mental agony and the trauma faced by the petitioners, this court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.
14 Accordingly, the period of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed by both the courts below against the petitioners is reduced to simple imprisonment for two years. 15 Except the above modification in respect of the period of sentence, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is dismissed.
16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall also stand dismissed.
-------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date:21.09.2023 Kvsn