Janga Krishna Murthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1592 AP

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.671 OF 2022

ORDER:-

      This criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to enlarge the petitioner on

bail in the event of his arrest.

2.    The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.326 of 2021

of Coringa Police Station, Kakinada.

3.    A case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'I.P.C') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P' Act) was registered against

the petitioner in the above crime.

4.    As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased is the

legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. Their marriage was

solemnized on 21.10.2021. The petitioner is an employee

working in Delhi Airport as CISF Constable. Immediately after

the marriage, the petitioner went to Delhi to attend his duties.

Thereafter, he started harassing the deceased who is his wife

over phone making illegal demands for additional dowry stating

that the dowry that was given to him at the time of marriage is

insufficient. So, it is stated that unable to bear the said

harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 15.12.2021 and

died. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed

the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
                                   2




5.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

6.    Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner and the deceased lived together after their marriage

only for two days and thereafter, the petitioner went to Delhi to

join duty. He would submit that even as per the case of the

prosecution, there is no allegation that the petitioner has

physically harassed the deceased and that there is no possibility

of harassing the deceased physically also as they lived together

for two days only after their marriage. He would submit that

even though it is stated that the petitioner has harassed the

deceased over phone by making illegal demands for additional

dowry, the details of the said phone etc., are not given.

Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in this case and he is innocent and thereby prayed

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.    Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

He would submit that a clear allegation is made in the F.I.R

which is lodged by the brother of the deceased that the

petitioner used to harass the deceased over phone making illegal

demands for additional dowry stating that the dowry that was

given to him at the time of his marriage is insufficient and that

unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed

suicide and died. He would submit that the details of the phone

numbers etc., are clearly mentioned in the F.I.R and the

contention that no such phone number is given is not correct.
                                3




He would submit that investigation in this case is at the initial

stage. He would submit that as it is a case of dowry death

punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the petitioner is not

entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

8.    The material facts relating to marriage between the

petitioner and the deceased are not in dispute. Admittedly, the

marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place on

21.10.2021

and they lived for two days together. Thereafter, the

petitioner left for Delhi to join duty. As can be seen from the

contents of the F.I.R, a clear allegation is made that the

petitioner used to harass the deceased over phone making illegal

demands for additional dowry stating that the dowry that was

given to him at the time of his marriage is insufficient. It is

stated that unable to bear the said harassment that the

deceased committed suicide and died on 15.12.2021. Therefore,

the said facts of the case prima facie constitute an offence

punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. As the death of the

deceased is dowry death, the presumption under Section 113-B

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the present facts of

the case. As per Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

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 has 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. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case

and in view of grave nature of the offence which relates to dowry

death of a woman, this Court is of the considered view that this

is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner rendered by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.40

of 2011 in the case of Gurcharan Singh vs. The State of

Punjab has no application to the present facts of the case. That

was a case relating to criminal appeal challenging the conviction

of the accused therein after full-fledged trial. Further, the

contention of the petitioner that the ingredients of Section 107

of I.P.C are to be satisfied to constitute an offence punishable

under Section 304-B of I.P.C is totally misconceived. Section

107 of I.P.C pertains to ingredients relating to offence of

abetment to commit suicide which is punishable under Section

307 of I.P.C. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel

for the petitioner has no merit as this is a case of dowry death

punishable under section 304-B of IPC.

10. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 31.03.2022 KA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.671 OF 2022

Date : 31.03.2022

KA