Telangana High Court
Zebunnisa, Nalgonda Dt., vs State Of Ap.,Thr Pp., High Court., on 4 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 and107 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 is filed by A2 and Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 is filed by A1 against judgment in S.C.No.107 of 2010 dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was married to the deceased on 29.04.2007. The deceased was daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. At the time of marriage, Rs.25,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold and 25 tulas of silver and other household articles were given. After the marriage, A1 and the deceased lived happily for one month. However, A1, A2 and also A3 and A4 (acquitted accused) were harassing for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-.
3. A female child was born to the deceased. The specific incident, according to the prosecution is that on 05.06.2009, the deceased called P.Ws.1 and 2 stating that she was being beaten for the purpose of additional dowry and asked them to come to their house. Then, P.W.1 and her son/P.W.3 went to the house of the appellant. 2 There, A1 beat P.W.1, P.W.3 and sent the deceased out of the house. The neighbours interfered and snatched the stick from the hands of A1. At that point of time, the deceased was also asked to leave the house and P.Ws.1 and 3 have taken the deceased to their house. On 08.06.2009, the deceased called A1 and he threatened that he is going to marry his uncle's daughter for not fulfilling the demand for additional dowry. On account of the said threat, deceased consumed poison. Within ten minutes of the incident, she was taken to the hospital, but the deceased died. On the very same day, i.e., 08.06.2009, complaint was filed with police, which is Ex.P1.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed, the police investigated the case and filed charge sheet under Section 304-B IPC against A1 to A4.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 14 and considering the documents Exs.P1 to P11 marked on behalf of the prosecution, found favour with the allegations against the appellants 1 and 2 and convicted A1 and A2. However, benefit of doubt was extended to A3 and A4.
3
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that omnibus allegations are leveled against appellants regarding beating. If at all there was constant fight and beating for the past one year, complaint would have been lodged or any panchayat would have been held, but no such steps were taken. Further, as seen from the post-mortem examination report, there are no external injuries found on the deceased. If at all there was beating by A1 with the stick, injuries would have been found on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel lastly submitted that at most an offence of cruelty may be made out and no offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC is made out since the allegations of demand of Rs.50,000/- is not proximate to the suicide. The allegation is that harassment was going on for one year, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not attracted.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed specifically regarding demand made by the appellants for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Further, failure to pay the said amount, A1 had threatened that he was going to marry his uncle's daughter.
4
8. P.Ws.1 and 3 have specifically stated that there was demand for Rs.50,000/- and for the said reason an altercation on 05.06.2009, three days before deceased committing suicide. On the said date, the incident happened in the house of the appellant. Since demand for additional dowry was not made, it is alleged that A1 beat P.Ws.1 and 3 with stick and also threw the deceased out of the house. Though, it is stated by P.W.1 that they have lodged a police complaint on 05.06.2009, which is on the date of incident, no FIR was registered on the said date.
9. However, the fact remains that there was a demand for Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry, which was three days prior to the deceased committing suicide. In the said circumstances, it is clear that on account of demand made for additional dowry and threat of A1 that he was going to marry another woman for not fulfilling the demand, unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed suicide.
10. However, insofar as A2, the mother of A1 is concerned, it is alleged that she had supported A1. There is no specific allegation that on 05.06.2009 she has assaulted P.Ws.1 and 3 or the 5 deceased. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 304- B IPC is confirmed against A1. However, no offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against A2. But there is consistent evidence regarding harassment for additional dowry and that over a period of year A2 supported A1. The conviction against A2 under Section 304-B of IPC is set aside and she is convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Though, no charge is framed under Section 498- A IPC, however, the contents of the charge framed under Section 304-B IPC clearly indicate that A2 was harassing the deceased. Even in the absence of specific charge being framed under Section 498-A IPC, since charge under Section 304-B IPC satisfies ingredients of Section 498-A IPC for harassment, conviction can as well be recorded. Accordingly, A2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A IPC and conviction under Section 304-B of IPC is set aside as against A2.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2013 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 is partly allowed. Since, both the appellants are on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause their 6 appearance and send them to prison to serve out remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 04.07.2024 kvs