Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sarangam Dayakar Rao, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 4 April, 2023
Bench: A V Babu
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.588 OF 2009
Between:
Sarangam Dayakar Rao,
S/o.Padmanabha Rao,
Aged 32 years, Hindu,
II Street, Haranadhapuram,
Nellore. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Re. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 04.04.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
2. Whether His Lordship wish to see
The fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
______________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.588 OF 2009
% 04.04.2023
# Between:
Sarangam Dayakar Rao,
S/o.Padmanabha Rao,
Aged 32 years, Hindu,
II Street, Haranadhapuram,
Nellore. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Re. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail,
learned counsel, representing
Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy.
Learned Counsel.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao,
Learned counsel, representing
Learned Public Prosecutor
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2011) 12 SCC 408
2. (2009) 16 SCC 35
3. Crl.A.No.189 of 2001, Dt.03.07.2003
4. (2004) 4 SCC 470
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.588 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „the Cr.P.C‟), is filed by the
appellant, who was the accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.103 of
2007, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore (for short, „the learned Additional
Sessions Judge‟), challenging the judgment, dated 23.05.2009,
where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the
appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „the IPC‟), questioned him
about the quantum of sentence, and thereafter sentenced him to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three
months for the charge under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced
him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay
a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for
six months for the charge under Section 304-B IPC. By the same
judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and
304-B IPC and acquitted them under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.103 of 2007 arose out of PRC No.92 of
2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Nellore (for short, „the learned Magistrate‟) pertaining
to Crime No.16 of 2006 of Nellore Rural Police Station.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the
averments in the charge sheet, filed by the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Nellore Rural Sub-Division, Nellore in the above Crime, is
as follows:
A-1 is resident of II Street, Harinathapuram, Nellore. A-2
and A-3 are the residents of Kota of Nellore District. A-1 is the son
of A-2 and A-3, who are the husband and wife. The deceased by
name Sarangam Anuradha was resident of Harinathapuram at the
time of her death. She is the wife of A-1 and daughter-in-law of
A-2 and A-3. She was subjected to dowry harassment by A-1 to
A-3 prior to her death. She died on 22.01.2006 at 11:00 a.m. by
jumping and drowning in Penna River near Venkateswarapuram,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
outskirts area of Nellore City. LW.1 - Mandava Rani, resident of
Nellore Town and Corporator of 1st Division, is the de-facto
complainant.
LW.6 - K. Ravindra Babu and LW.7 - K. Sujatha belonged to
Gundalammapalem of Kodavalur Mandal in Nellore District and
they settled at Hyderabad doing the job of plying Auto. They have
one son i.e., LW.8 - K. Raja Sekhar and one daughter i.e., the
deceased by name Anuradha. They performed the marriage of their
deceased daughter with A-1 on 28.01.2004 in D.N.R. Community
Hall of Gudur Town in the presence of A-2, A-3 and others. On
demand made by all the accused, they gave them dowry of
Rs.60,000/- and 14 sovereigns of gold. A cash of Rs.15,000/- was
also paid to the accused towards household articles. LW.11 - P.
Ramesh Babu and LW.12 - Sarangam Anjani Kumar settled the
said marriage. After marriage, the deceased joined with A-1. Both
A-1 and the deceased were residing in a rented house in
Harinathapuram of Nellore along with A-2 and A-3 and their
daughter. Three or four months subsequent to the marriage, A-1
to A-3 started demanding the deceased to get additional dowry
from her parents. They subjected her to harassment mentally and
physically for more dowry. Deceased used to reveal the same to
LWs.6 and 7, her parents, and LW.8, her brother, whenever she
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
visited her parents house at Hyderabad. In the year 2004, when
she became pregnant, LW.6 paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused as
additional dowry. Even after the deceased gave birth to a male
child, accused subjected her to dowry harassment. In May, 2005,
LW.6 paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused.
Subsequently, A-2 and A-3 shifted their residence to their native
place Kota. A-1 and deceased continued to reside in the same
Harinathapuram.
When LWs.6 and 7 fixed the marriage of their son i.e., LW.8,
A-1 began demanding the deceased to bring an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. On 21.01.2006, LW.6 visited
Bitragunta and fixed his son‟s marriage. At that time, the deceased
made a phone call to him and informed about the demand of A-1
to bring one lakh rupees. LW.6 returned to Hyderabad on
22.01.2006. Again the deceased made a phone call to LW.6 and
stated that A-1 to A-3 were harassing and beating her for want of
one lakh rupees. On the same day, A-1 made a phone call to LW.8
at 10:30 a.m. stating that he was sending the deceased to
Hyderabad for money. A-1 forcibly sent the deceased from his
house to go to Hyderabad to bring cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from her
parents on 22.01.2006 at 10:00 a.m. The deceased left the house,
as there was no other option to escape from the dowry harassment
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
by A-1 to A-3, went to Penna Bridge and jumped into the river at
about 11:00 a.m. and committed suicide. LW.4 - Shaik Dasthagiri
witnessed the occurrence. On knowing the occurrence, LW.1 -
Mandava Rani, LW.2 - Katamgari Balakrishna and LW.3 - Shaik
Khaleel Basha visited the scene of occurrence and removed the
dead body from the river water. On the same day at 03:30 p.m.,
LW.1 preferred a written report to SI of Police, Nellore Rural.
LW.23, SI of Police, Nellore Rural, registered the same as a case in
Crime No.16 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued FIR.
On coming to know about the death of the deceased, LWs.6 to 8
i.e., parents and brother of the deceased, relatives and others
reached Nellore and saw the dead body of the deceased in
Government Hospital, Nellore. LW.23 - SI of Police and LW.24 - K.
Veera Reddy, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, took up investigation,
visited the scene of offence and examined all the material
witnesses. LW.18 - Y. Bhaskar Naidu, Mandal Executive
Magistrate (MRO), conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased on 23.01.2006 at 01:00 p.m. in the presence of LW.15 -
K. Venkata Mahesh and LW.16 - K. Sreenivasa Rao as inquest
panchayatdars and further examined LWs.1 to 3. Later, the dead
body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination.
LWs.19 and 20, Medical Officers, conducted post-mortem
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
examination and opined that the death is due to asphyxia due to
drowning. On 28.01.2006 at 08:50 a.m. A-1 was produced before
LW.24 by SI of Police, Nellore Rural. After following the requisite
arrest procedure, LW.24 arrested the accused in his office and
later sent him for remand. Subsequently, A-2 and A-3 surrendered
before the Court on 12.04.2006. Hence, the charge sheet.
5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet
and numbered it as PRC No.92 of 2006. After appearance of the
accused and after completing the formalities under Section 207
Cr.P.C, PRC No.92 of 2006 was committed to the Court of Session
and thereafter it was numbered as S.C. No.103 of 2007 and made
over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. After appearance of the accused before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, charges
under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC were framed and explained
to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, before the Court below, on behalf
of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P-1 to
P-16 were marked. Further, Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked during
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
the course of cross-examination of PWs.5, 6 and 7. Further, MOs.1
to 7 were marked.
8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by
the prosecution, for which they denied the same and did not
adduce any defence evidence.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both
sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, found A-2 and A-3 not guilty of the charges and acquitted
them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge found A-1 guilty of both the charges under
Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, convicted and sentenced him as
above.
10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused (A-1)
filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in convicting him under Sections
498-A and 304-B IPC.
11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are:
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved that A-1 subjected the deceased to mental and
physical harassment and subjected her to cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved that death of the deceased was dowry death on
account of the harassment meted out to her in the
hands of the appellant (A-1)?
3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
12. POINT Nos.1, 2 & 3: Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned
counsel, representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel
for the appellant, would contend that the Court below recorded an
order of conviction against the appellant basing on the interested
testimony of PWs.5 to 7, parents and elder brother of the
deceased. Even the Court below relied upon the testimony of
P. Ramesh Babu - PW.9, who was also interested in the case of the
prosecution. Absolutely, the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 is hearsay in
nature. It is not that A-1 demanded the parents and brother of the
deceased to pay additional dowry etc. The learned Additional
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
Sessions Judge having recorded an order of acquittal against A-2
and A-3 erred in convicting the appellant herein. The evidence is
lacking to prove the harassment, physical and mental, alleged to
be meted out to the deceased in the hands of A-1. The averments
in the charge sheet were with untrue contents because
prosecution alleged that A-2 and A-3 used to reside along with A-1
but in the evidence it was admitted that A-2 and A-3 were residing
in Kota, Nellore District. Deceased and A-1 were residing at
Harinathapuram, Nellore District. So, the case of the prosecution
was with false allegations. The evidence on record proved that
PWs.5 and 6 had no financial capacity to pay dowry, household
articles and gold etc., at the time of marriage, and prosecution did
not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the gold
ornaments were purchased in connection with the marriage by
PWs.5 and 6. In fact, it is A-2 and A-3, who performed the
birthday function of the son of A-1 and deceased and to examine
the same, there were photographs before the Court below. The
neighbouring witnesses i.e., PWs.8 and 17 did not support the
case of the prosecution. Prosecution did not examine any other
independent witnesses. Though there was delay in lodging the
report, the trial Court failed to take into consideration the same.
Except a bald version that A-1 subjected the deceased to cruelty
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
and harassment on the vague allegations of demand and dowry
and vague allegations of bringing huge amount of one lakh rupees,
there was no convincing evidence adduced before the Court. There
were improvements in the testimony of PWs.5 to 7 on material
aspects and the trial Court failed to look into the same. According
to the defence of A-1 before the Court below, the death of the
deceased was on accidental fall. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record and instead of
acquitting the appellant/A-1 convicted him as such Appeal is
liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant in support
of his contentions, would rely upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others1,
Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab2 and a decision of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.M.Ravi v. State of
Andhra Pradesh3.
13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing
learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State,
would contend that the trial Court took care in analyzing the
evidence on record and in that process extended benefit of doubt
1 (2011) 12 SCC 408
2 (2009) 16 SCC 35
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
to A-2 and A-3. The trial Court rightly believed the evidence of
PWs.5 to 7 and the mediator, who mediated the marriage between
the deceased and A-1. PWs.5 to 7 fully supported the case of the
prosecution. The mediator by name P. Ramesh Babu (PW.9) also
supported the case of the prosecution. The death of the deceased
was on account of commission of suicide for which the prosecution
let in voluminous oral evidence. The contention of A-1 that the
death of deceased was due to accidental fall was not at all
established. The death of the deceased was hardly within two
years from the date of her marriage. The deceased was residing
along with A-1 at the time of her death. A-1 had no probable say
as to the circumstances in which the deceased committed suicide.
On the other hand, the prosecution adduced evidence to prove
that commission of suicide by the deceased was on account of the
harassment meted out to her in the hands of A-1. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and awarded conviction as such Appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
14. PW.1 is the 1st Division Corporator, Nellore who came to
know that the deceased committed suicide and lodged report with
the Police. PW.2 is the person who was requested by PW.1 to
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
remove the dead body from the river water and according to him,
he removed the dead body of the deceased from the river water.
PW.3 is the auto driver, who claimed to have witnessed when a
woman jumped into the Penna River. PW.4 is the elder brother of
A-1, who came to know about the commission of suicide by the
deceased on 22.01.2006. PWs.5 and 6 are the father and mother
and PW.7 is the elder brother of the deceased. PW.8 is the witness
examined by the prosecution who did not support the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution examined PW.9 to prove the fact that
he and others mediated the marriage between A-1 and deceased
and to speak about the dowry given at the time of marriage. PW.10
is the panchayatdar to the observation of the scene of offence by
the Police. PW.11 is the inquest panchayatdar. PW.12 is the then
Executive Magistrate, who conducted inquest over the dead body
of the deceased. PW.13 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-
mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW.14 is
the photographer who took photographs over the dead body of the
deceased. PW.15 is the Police Constable who took the dead body of
the deceased to the Medical Officer for conducting post-mortem
examination. PW.16 is the then SI of Police, who registered the
report of PW.1 as a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and to speak
about his part of investigation. PW.17 is neighbor to the house of
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
the deceased, who did not support the case of the prosecution.
PW.18 is the SDPO and investigating Officer in this case.
15. There is no dispute about the relationship of A-1 with A-2
and A-3. A-2 and A-3 were exonerated of the charges. The
marriage between the deceased and A-1 was not in dispute. PWs.5
to 7 are the father, mother and brother of the deceased. To speak
about the alleged cruelty meted out to deceased in the hands of
A-1 and further harassment and ill-treatment towards additional
dowry, there is evidence of PWs.5 to 7, kith and kin of the
deceased and PW.9, the mediator, who mediated the marriage
between the deceased and A-1. The Court below found favour with
the case of the prosecution as such convicted A-1 under Sections
498-A and 304-B IPC.
16. Section 498-A IPC speaks of subjecting a married woman to
cruelty by the husband or the relative of the husband and cruelty
means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of the woman or when such
harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
17. The gist of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is that there
should be death of a woman caused by any burns or bodily injury
or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.
18. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased committed
suicide on account of the harassment meted out to her from A-1.
It is altogether a different aspect that though the Investigating
Officer alleged that A-2 and A-3 were also responsible for her
death, the Court below exonerated them of the charges. So, the
scope of this Appeal is confined to decide the allegations against
A-1 only.
19. In the light of the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A
and 304-B IPC, this Court has to decide as to whether the death of
the deceased was on account of the suicide and whether it was
otherwise than under normal circumstances.
20. PW.1 is the 1st Division Corporator, Nelluru, who does not
know A-1 to A-3 as well as the deceased. Her evidence is that on
22.01.2006 at 12:00 noon, she came to know that a woman fell
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
into Penna River. Then, she rushed to Penna River, situated at a
distance of 4 or 5 KMs from the place where she was and she was
informed that the said woman jumped into the Penna River and
she was not rescued from the water. Then, she requested LW.2 -
Balakrishna and LW.3 - Khaleel Basha to remove the woman from
the river water and they jumped into the river water and removed
the woman from river water, by which time she died. Then it was
about 01:30 p.m. She informed the incident to Police by virtue of
Ex.P-1 report. Later, she came to know about the identity
particulars of the deceased. Ex.P-2 is four photographs with
negatives of the deceased. Police examined her on the date of
report.
21. The defence counsel elicited from her cross-examination
that the bridge near the scene of offence is running north to south
and might be of 2 KMs at length.
22. PW.2 is one of the persons who removed the dead body from
the waters of Penna River and he testified that on 22.01.2006 at
02:00 p.m. PW.1 sent a word to him to come to Penna River and
then he went to Penna River. PW.1 requested him and one Khaleel
Basha to remove the dead body of a woman from the water. Then,
himself and Khaleel Basha jumped into Penna River and removed
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
the dead body from the waters. He can identify the photographs of
the dead body. Ex.P-2 is 4 photographs of the dead body. During
the course of cross-examination, there is no dispute about removal
of the dead body by PW.2 with the aid of one Khaleel Basha at the
instance of PW.1. Even during the course of cross-examination of
PW.1 accused did not dispute about the removal of the dead body
from the Penna River.
23. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, who was a direct witness to
the occurrence i.e., jumping of the deceased into Penna River, he
deposed that he is an Auto driver. On 22.01.2006 at 11:00 or
11:30 a.m. when he was coming towards Nellore from
Venkateswarapuram in his service auto with passengers and when
their auto was on the Penna Bridge, he saw a woman on the
Penna Bridge. In the meanwhile, one of the passengers in the Auto
cried as she is jumping into river. Then, he saw the said woman
on the Penna Bridge jumping into the waters of Penna River.
Though he tried to stop the Auto but the passengers in the auto
asked him not to stop. So, he proceeded further towards Nellore
without stopping the Auto. He stated that the woman who jumped
into the river water was wearing light rose colour Punjabi dress
and she was aged about 25 years. The photographs under Ex.P-2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
shown to him are of the woman whom he saw jumping into the
river water. On that day, Police examined him in the evening.
During the course of cross-examination he reiterated that he saw
the said woman jumping from the Penna Bridge at a distance of
100 feet away from Venkateswarapuram side bridge entrance. He
did not prefer any report to Police. He denied that he did not saw
any woman jumping into the river water.
24. PW.4 is no other than the elder brother of A-1 who testified
categorically that Anuradha - deceased died on 22.01.2006 by
committing suicide by jumping into the Penna river. On
22.01.2006 at 03:30 p.m. when he was in Nellore town, he
received phone message about the death of wife of A-1. Then, he
rushed to Penna River and found the dead body. Police were also
there. People gathered there. Then he informed the incident to A-2.
He also informed about the death of Anuradha to her brother at
Hyderabad. To the above evidence of PW.4, who is no other than
the elder brother of A-1, his evidence was not challenged in cross-
examination on the theory of suicide.
25. Turning to the testimony of PW.5, father of the deceased, his
evidence as to the manner in which they came to know about the
death of the deceased is that since A-1 to A-3 are harassing her
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
daughter for bringing more money from him and A-1 was not
looking after the son of her daughter, she committed suicide by
jumping into Penna river. According to the evidence of PW.6,
mother of the deceased, her daughter committed suicide by
jumping into the waters of Penna river on account of the
harassment made by the accused towards her daughter on the
demand of additional dowry. According to the evidence of PW.7,
the elder brother of the deceased, her sister committed suicide on
account of the harassment of the accused. According to him, on
22.01.2006 at about 04:00 p.m., PW.4 telephoned to him and
informed that his sister committed suicide by jumping into the
waters of Penna River.
26. During the course of cross-examination of PW.5 accused got
suggested to him that he (PW.5) asked his daughter to come over
to Gundalammapalem on telephone from Bitragunta and
accordingly, she proceeded to Gundalammapalem from Nellore. He
denied the above said suggestion. He further denied a suggestion
that her daughter on the way to Gundalammapalem fell into the
river Penna accidentally. He denied that he asked her daughter to
come to Gundalammapalem as such he went to
Gundalammapalem to enquire about coming of her daughter to
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
Gundalammapalem and that he is deposing false. PW.6 during the
course of cross-examination denied that the deceased died on
account of the accidental fall into Penna River while she was going
to Gundalammapalem at their instance only. Even PW.7 denied
the above said suggestion.
27. Admittedly, PWs.5 to 7 were not witnesses as to how the
deceased died. So, the crucial evidence as regards the commission
of suicide by the deceased is that of the evidence of PW.3, auto
driver. When PW.3 specifically testified that the deceased jumped
into the river on that day and when he identified the dead body of
the deceased with reference to Ex.P-2 nothing is suggested to
PW.3 during the course of cross-examination that the deceased
died by accidental fall. Even the evidence of PW.4, own brother of
A-1, is not impeached on the ground that his coming to know
about the commission of the suicide by the deceased is false. It is
to be noticed that the topographic particulars elicited from the
mouth of PW.1 disclosed that the bridge near the scene of offence
is running north to south and its length is of 2 KMs. It is not the
case of A-1 that one has to cross the Penna Bridge by walking into
the riverbed of Penna. On the other hand, the bridge is of 2 KMs
length with necessary parapet walls. A-1 has no probable say as to
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
how the deceased might go to Penna River especially when she
was allegedly going to Gundalammapalem. So, the theory of
accidental fall projected by A-1 during the course of cross-
examination of PWs.5 to 7 is without any basis. It is nothing but a
baseless defence. There was no reason for PW.3, auto driver, to
speak falsely. There is no dispute about the cause of death of the
deceased by virtue of the evidence of PW.13, the Medical Officer,
who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The
cause of death was of shock due to asphyxia due to drowning and
Ex.P-11 is the final report. So, the cause of death was due to
asphyxia due to drowning. The crucial thing is whether the
deceased fell into the river accidentally or jumped into the river. As
pointed out above, the very defence of A-1 that the deceased fell
into the river by accidental fall cannot stand to any reason. He did
not venture to put forth any theory before PW.3 that the deceased
fell into river by accidental fall. Having regard to the above, this
Court is of the considered view that the defence of accused that
the deceased died by accidental fall cannot stand to any reason.
28. The line of contention of appellant is that as PW.5
telephoned to the deceased to come over to Gundalammapalem
and when the deceased was proceeding to there, she fell into the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
river accidentally. It is no doubt true that PW.5 during cross-
examination deposed that while reaching to Nellore on the way
after they learnt that the deceased was admitted into hospital,
they happened to visit Gundalammapalem. He volunteers that as
the son of the deceased was with them, by then they went into
village to bring milk for the son and where they came to know
about the death of the deceased. His chief-examination in this
regard is that having learnt a message i.e., on that day the
deceased was admitted into hospital, they all started in a car. So,
accused was able to elicit from PW.5 during cross-examination on
the way they visited the particular village. PW.5 clarified that they
went into the village to bring milk. A-1 wanted to probabilize his
contention that as PWs.5 and 6 went into Gundalammapalem
village, there was a probability for the deceased to make an
attempt to go to that village. The above said contention is devoid of
merits for the reason that if the deceased was going to the village,
she had no necessity to go to Penna River which is far away from
the city and she would have caught a bus at Nellore city itself. As
evident from the evidence of PW.7, who is the elder brother of
deceased, it is PW.4 who intimated to PW.7 on 22.01.2006 at
04:00 p.m. that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into
the waters of Penna River. PW.4 is no other than the elder brother
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
of A-1, who intimated PW.7 that the death of the deceased was
suicidal. If really, the death was due to accidental fall into the
river, A-1 would have cross-examined PW.4 in this regard. So,
there is consistency in the case of prosecution from the evidence of
PW.1 and PWs.3 to 7. PW.17, who was neighbourer to the house of
the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and
deviating from Ex.P-15, 161 Cr.P.C. statement, deposed as if she
learnt that the deceased died by falling into Penna river. According
to her, on that day when she was washing her clothes, deceased
left her house asking her (PW.17) to fill one vessel of water as she
was going to see her paternal grand mother. So, the hostility of
PW.17 was proved through the evidence of PW.18, Sub-Divisional
Police Officer. PW.17 stated before him as in Ex.P-15. Hence, the
evidence of PW.17, the hostile witness, is of no use to the case of
A-1 to contend that the deceased died due to accidental fall into
the Penna River. In the light of the above, the prosecution before
the Court below categorically established that the deceased
committed suicide by jumping into the Penna River. The
contention of the appellant that the deceased died by accidental
fall is without any basis.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
29. There is no dispute that the marriage between the deceased
and A-1 was held on 28.01.2004. The death of the deceased was
on 22.01.2006. So, it was hardly within a period of two years from
the date of marriage she died on account of the commission of
suicide. The gist of the offence to brand the death as un-natural
one should be that such death should be within a period of 7
years from the date of marriage. So, the prosecution categorically
established that the commission of suicide by the deceased was
within the period of seven years as such another essential
ingredient of Section 304-B IPC was established by the
prosecution. Apart from this, the prosecution was further able to
prove that the death of the deceased i.e., by way of commission of
suicide was nothing but under normal circumstances. So, another
essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC that the death of a
married woman happened in otherwise under normal
circumstances was also established by the prosecution before the
Court below.
30. Another essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC which the
prosecution was supposed to establish is that soon before death,
the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by A-1 with a
demand for dowry or in connection with dowry. Admittedly, the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
evidence available to prove these aspects is that of PWs.5 to 7 and
PW.9, who was a mediator, who negotiated the marriage with
regard to things that were presented at the time of marriage.
PWs.5 to 7 deposed that the marriage between the deceased and
A-1 was held at Gudur and at the time of marriage they gave
Rs.60,000/- cash towards dowry, Rs.40,000/- cash towards
marriage expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards household articles
and 14 sovereigns of gold to A-1. The contention of A-1 is that
PWs.5 and 6 had no financial capacity to pay such amount. A-1
agitated about the same during the course of their cross-
examination. A probing cross-examination of PW.5 was done by
learned defence counsel before the Court below. In such course
PW.5 testified that out of 14 sovereigns of gold that was given to
A-1 during the marriage, some gold was with him in his house.
Some gold ornament was with his mother and the remaining gold
was purchased by his wife and his relatives. The receipts are
available for the gold purchased by his wife and relatives. He did
not handover those receipts to Police. Before marriage, they were
having movable and immovable properties of their own i.e., landed
property and household property at Bitragunta and landed
property at Gundalammapalem was sold away by them for the
marriage. He sold them during month of December, 2003 when
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
the marriage was held in the month of January, 2004. There are
documents evidencing his selling the immovable property. The
landed property was sold by him to his younger brother. His house
property was sold by him to his neighbor at Bitragunta but he
cannot give his name but his son knows his name. He denied that
he is not having capacity to gift 14 sovereigns of gold, pay
Rs.60,000/- in cash towards dowry and Rs.40,000/- cash towards
marriage expenses. PW.6 during cross-examination deposed that
she purchased gold ornaments for her daughter at the time of her
marriage at Nellore. She did not handover the said receipts to the
Police.
31. It is to be noticed that the accused having got elicited the
above answers during the course of cross-examination of PWs.5
and 6 did not further challenge their testimony. It is not suggested
either to PW.5 or PW.6 that they did not have any lands and they
did not have any house. Their further testimony with regard to
selling of the landed property and household property for the
marriage of the deceased was not challenged on behalf of the
accused. So, the contention of A-1 before the Court below that
PWs.5 and 6 had no financial capacity to present the things as
deposed by them at the time of marriage is not tenable.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
32. However, to prove the charges under Sections 498-A and
304-B IPC, the further thing which the prosecution was supposed
to establish was the so called demand made by A-1 against
deceased to bring some more amounts towards additional dowry.
33. Now, it is appropriate to look into the evidence of PWs.5 to 7
further. According to PW.5, after marriage, A-1 setup his family at
Harinathapuram along with deceased, his parents and sister, who
was un-married by then. His daughter and accused lived amicably
for three months. After that A-1 along with his parents demanded
his daughter to bring one lakh rupees. A-1 was demanding and
harassing her daughter asking her to bring money from him. The
deceased used to inform about the harassment to him by
telephone and whenever she visited Hyderabad. They incurred the
expenses of delivery of her daughter when she gave birth to a male
child at Andalamma Hospital, Nellore. Even after accused
harassed her daughter, A-1 used to beat his grandson. After the
boy attained age of one year, his daughter gave the said boy to
them as A-1 was frequently beating the small boy. So, they were
looking after the son of her daughter and even now the boy is with
them. With regard to the incident in question, he deposed that on
21.01.2006 he came to Bitragunta in connection with the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
negotiations for the marriage of his son. He informed his daughter
that he will give some amount to her in due course. During the
night of 21.01.2006 he returned to Hyderabad by train. He talked
with her daughter by phone and assured that he will pay some
amount. On 22.01.2006 when he was at his house at Hyderabad,
he came to know that his daughter was admitted in a hospital in a
serious condition. Then, they proceeded to Nellore in a car. On the
way they went to Gundalammapalem where he was informed that
she died. Then they went to Nellore Government Hospital and
found the dead body of their daughter in mortuary at 08:00 a.m.
on 23.01.2006. A-1 to A-3 were not present when they reached
there. Even they did not attend the funeral ceremonies of his
daughter. Police examined him. MRO conducted inquest over the
dead body.
34. The evidence of PW.6 with regard to the allegations against
A-1 for demanding additional dowry is that some months after the
marriage, her daughter used to inform that the accused were not
looking after on the ground that she did not bring sufficient
money. Whenever she visited Hyderabad, she used to state to
them that accused was not looking her properly and she used to
weep. They incurred the medical expenses when their daughter
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
gave birth to a boy in Andalamma Hospital, Nellore. They have
borne out those hospital expenses. Whenever she further visited
Hyderabad, she used to state that accused were demanding
money. Her son Rajasekhar gave money for three times to
deceased at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each time. On 22.01.2006 she
was informed that her son talked with her daughter and came to
know that A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 quarreled with her on the
demand of additional dowry amount. On the same day her son
received telephone message from PW.4 that her daughter died.
Then, she, her husband and her son started to Nellore along with
the son of her daughter in a car. They reached to Government
hospital and A-1 to A-3 were not there. Police conducted inquest
over the dead body.
35. The evidence of PW.7 is that in the first instance accused
looked after her sister properly and later she was not treated
properly and was subjected to harassment. A-1 used to harass her
on the ground that his business was not good by demanding her
to bring more money. He convinced his sister to adjust with the
accused. He also brought the said fact to the notice of Ramesh
Babu, who arranged the marriage between his sister and A-1.
When her sister got pregnancy, he used to pay the amounts to her
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
sister for medical expenditure at the request of A-1. On
20.01.2006, his father came to Nellore in connection with
negotiations for his marriage. On 21.01.2006 his father went to
Bitragunta in connection with his marriage negotiations. On the
same night he left to Hyderabad. On 22.01.2006, he received a
telephone call from his sister from Nellore at 10:30 a.m. and she
enquired him about his marriage alliance and he informed her
about the details of negotiations of his marriage. Her sister
informed him that her husband and parents-in-law were not
looking after her properly. In the meantime, A-1 took the cell
phone from his sister and beat her. He was able to hear it in the
telephone. After some time, he made a call to his sister at 08:30
a.m. and asked her that those things are common. At 10:30 a.m.
A-1 telephoned to him from one rupee coin box at Railway Station,
Nellore and informed him that he was sending his sister to
Hyderabad for which he asked him not to send her to Hyderabad
and that he would send his parents to Nellore for talks. Then, A-1
told him that at least he would send his sister to Bitragunta to his
paternal grand mother for which he replied that his grand mother
is not at Bitragunta and she went to Balajinagar. Then, A-1 told
him that he would send his sister to Balajinagar. Again, he asked
him to go back to his house and that his parents would come by
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
next day. Then, A-1 switched off the mobile. Then, he again
telephoned to the cell phone of A-1, which was lifted by his sister
and he asked her to go back to house and that he would send his
parents. Then, his sister asked him to telephone her after she goes
to the house so that she can talk with her mother. On the same
day at about 03:30 p.m. A-1 telephoned to him and informed that
his sister did not return to house and then he asked him to verify
whether she went to Balajinagar or not. Then, A-1 stated that he
does not want to telephone to anybody and switched off the phone.
Then, at 04:00 p.m. he came to know that his sister died by
committing suicide through PW.4.
36. This portion of the evidence of PW.7 that he came to know
about the death of the deceased by commission of suicide has
support from the evidence of PW.4, who deposed that he intimated
the elder brother of the deceased about the commission of suicide.
37. As seen from the evidence of PW.9, who was a mediator, who
negotiated the marriage between the deceased and A-1, he
deposed that Anuradha committed suicide by jumping into Penna
River on 22.01.2006. In the year, 2003 he and Anjani Kumar
negotiated and settled the marriage between Anuradha and A-1. At
the time of marriage, it was agreed to give Rs.60,000/- as dowry,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
Rs.40,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
household articles and 14 sovereigns of gold to A-1. During
marriage the parents of Anurdaha gave the agreed dowry and
presentations. Six months after the marriage, PWs.5 and 7
informed him that in spite of their giving the amounts, their
daughter was subjected to harassment by A-1. One year after the
marriage, when he met Anuradha and her mother at Nellore
Railway Station, they informed him that accused were demanding
more money from her parents for the business of A-1. Then, he
made a request to his co-brother Anjani Kumar to convince the
accused. Later, he came to know that the deceased committed
suicide.
38. The first line of contention of appellant is that the evidence
of PWs.5 to 7 is hearsay in nature. It is difficult to accept such a
contention. They categorically have spoken about the presentation
of cash, gold ornaments and household articles to the accused at
the time of marriage. The harassment meted out to the deceased
can only be spoken by PWs.5 to 7. Hence, the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not tenable.
39. During the course of cross-examination of PWs.5 to 7,
Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. As seen from the Exs.D-1, D-2 and
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
D-4 they are not at all material. Ex.D-1 is relating to the date of
giving an amount of Rs.10,000/- by PW.5. So, it is not material at
all. Similarly, Ex.D-2 is to the effect that they brought their
daughter‟s child to Hyderabad about 40 days back and they are
looking after the baby. This has no significance at all as it is not
the case of A-1 that his son i.e., small child was in his custody at
the time of death of the deceased. Even accused agitated before
PW.6 that when they attended a function at Kota, they took away
the child of the deceased. So, the custody of the child was with
PWs.5 and 6, admittedly. It is immaterial whether they got the
custody of the child 40 days back or earlier thereto. Coming to
Ex.D-4, it runs that PW.7 told his sister that Ac.1.00 cents of and
Rs.50,000/- cash is being given to him at the time of marriage. It
is to be noticed that in connection with the marriage alliance of
PW.7, elder brother of the deceased, actually he conversed with his
sister by phone and according to the appellant he stated so as in
Ex.D-4. So, accused wanted to take an advantage even what PW.7
conversed with his marriage alliance with the deceased and it has
nothing to do with the case of the accused. So, Exs.D-1, D-2 and
D-4 deserve no merit. Ex.D-3 is three photos when some function
was held at Kota in the year 2004 and it has nothing to do with
the defence of the accused. The contention of A-1 is that he was
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
taking care of the deceased when she became pregnant and went
to hospital along with the deceased etc. As husband of the
deceased, it is the bounden duty of A-1 to take care of the health
of the deceased when she was carrying pregnancy. So, simply
because PWs.5 and 6 attended some function at Kota in
connection with new born child and simply because A-1
accompanied the deceased to the hospital when she became
pregnant etc., are not going to advance the case of the defence of
A-1 in any way, in my considered view.
40. Now, coming to the omissions, absolutely, during the course
of evidence of PW.5, no omissions are elicited by the learned
defence counsel before the Court below. Coming to the evidence of
PW.6, she deposed that she did not state before Police that her
daughter came to their house and left her son with them stating
that accused were not looking after her properly. She volunteers
that as the Police did not ask them, she did not reveal. The above
is not at all material because some how or the other PWs.5 and 6
came into custody of the son of A-1 and deceased for which there
was no explanation from the mouth of A-1 properly. So, even the
evidence of PW.6 has no improvements. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.7, A-1 agitated about certain omissions
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
and he was able to elicit some omissions from the mouth of
PW.18, the SDPO. To ascertain as to whether the so called
omissions are on material aspects, it is pertinent to look into the
same. PW.18 during the course of cross-examination stated that
PW.7 did not state before him that A-1 sustained loss in his
business and on that ground he demanded additional dowry but
he stated before him that A-1 demanded for additional dowry. So,
what is crucial is the demand for additional dowry but not the
reason for such demand. So, the above is not at all an
improvement. PW.18, further deposed in cross-examination that
PW.7 did not state before him that he paid amount thrice at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- each time but he stated that he paid cash
twice to A-1 at Rs.10,000/- each. The above is also not a material
aspect because the payment of Rs.10,000/- each by PW.7 to A-1
was there even in 161 Cr.P.C statement, according to PW.18.
PW.18 further deposed that PW.7 did not state before him that
when the victim and A-1 were at railway station, they talked with
PW.7 on phone and that A-1 beat the victim but he stated about
the victim and A-1‟s presence at the railway station. Though the so
called attribution against A-1 that he beat the deceased at railway
station was omission but the presence of deceased and A-1 was
not an omission on 22.01.2006 at railway station. So, the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
substratum of the evidence of PW.7 that on 22.01.2006 A-1 made
a telephone call to him from one rupee coin box stating that he
was sending the deceased to him and that PW.7 requested him not
to do so and the so called conversation between him and A-1 was
there even before the SDPO during the course of investigation and
these are not at all omissions. So, in my considered view, the
evidence of PW.7 with regard to certain events happened at railway
station on 22.01.2006 in the morning cannot be taken as
omissions. Hence, in my considered view, the evidence of PW.7
does not suffer with any omissions. The contradictions under
Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-4 are not at all material. Hence, there was
consistency between the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 to any extent.
41. Absolutely, there is no dispute that though the Police alleged
in the charge sheet that A-2 and A-3 were residing with A-1 but it
is elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.5 that as
on the date of death of the deceased they were residing at Kota.
Looking into those circumstances the Court below extended an
order of acquittal in favour of A-2 and A-3. So, as on the date of
death, A-1 and the deceased were residing together. During the
course of cross-examination of PWs.5 to 7, accused got suggested
to them that as they were not taking care of the deceased
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
financially well, the deceased felt humiliated. As already pointed
out, the financial capacity of PW.5 was probed during the course
of cross-examination and his evidence in this regard is convincing.
It is a case where, according to the cross-examination of PW.7, the
medical bills regarding the expenses incurred by PWs.5 and 6 were
with the accused. According to the evidence of PW.7, A-1 delivered
the medical receipts to him and he paid back the amounts to A-1.
So, it is a case where there is convincing evidence to show that
PWs.5 to 7 took care of the medical expenses of the deceased,
when she gave birth to a child at Andalamma Hospital, Nellore. As
dutiful parents, they obliged that it is their responsibility and did
so. Apart from this, it is a case where PWs.5 and 6 were taking
care of the small child of the deceased and A-1 at Hyderabad. A
woman like the deceased would not go to the extent of feeling
humiliation, especially when PW.5 was the auto driver and when
he presented cash, gold ornaments and household articles at the
time of her marriage. So, according to A-1, as the parents of
deceased were not taking care of her financially, she felt
humiliated. Virtually, it is not the defence of the accused that on
account of such humiliation, she committed suicide. The intention
of A-1 can be gathered from his line of defence that he attributed
default against PWs.5 and 6 for not looking after the deceased
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
financially well. The above said defence of the accused appears to
be baseless when PWs.5 and 6 born out the medical expenses and
they did necessary things at the time of marriage. Though PW.5
was an auto driver, they took care of the minor child into their
fold. The contention of the appellant in this regard is not tenable.
42. A-1 had no probable say as to the circumstances under
which he allowed his small child into the custody of PWs.5 and 6,
who were residing at Hyderabad, a far away place from Nellore.
The evidence of PW.5 is that as A-1 was torturing even the small
child, they took the son of the deceased and A-1 into their fold.
These things are quietly evident and established by the
prosecution. It is a case that 20.01.2006 and 21.01.2006 were the
dates which relate to the negotiations pertaining to the marriage
talks of PW.7. The deceased was no other than sister of PW.7 and
daughter of PWs.5 and 6. So, the settlement of marriage of PW.7
was happy news to the deceased. So, when there was an occasion
for settlement of marriage talks pertaining to PW.7, it is rather
surprising that the deceased would develop humiliation against
PWs.5 and 6 for allegedly not providing financial help. As pointed
out, it is not the case of A-1 that she committed suicide on
account of such humiliation. The theory of accidental fall
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
canvassed by A-1 deserves no merit. During the course of probing
cross-examination of PW.7, he was asked to state as to whether
the deceased attended relating to his marriage talks. He deposed
in cross-examination that they did not call his sister for his
marriage negotiations but they called her at the time of pelli
choopulu (Bride groom and bride first meeting prior to the date of
marriage talks) and she also attended it. It was held in January,
11th or 12th. In that connection both A-1 and his sister attended.
He further denied in cross-examination that since they did not call
his sister for his marriage negotiations, she felt ashamed of it. He
volunteers that since the gold ornaments of deceased were pledged
by A-1, she herself did not attend to his marriage negotiations in
spite of their inviting her. The above answer elicited during the
course of cross-examination was not challenged by A-1. Nothing
was suggested by PW.7 that A-1 did not pledge the gold ornaments
of the deceased. Without disputing the above fact, A-1 ventured to
put a question before PW.18 during cross-examination as to
whether he investigated whether the gold ornaments of the
deceased were pledged or not. In fact, the Investigating Officer has
no chance to look into the said aspect because the above answer
was elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.7. So,
the evidence of PW.7 shows a plausible explanation as to why the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
deceased could not attend the marriage talks of PW.7. Hence, in
the light of the above, absolutely, the contention of A-1 that the
deceased felt humiliated on account of the behaviour of PWs.5 and
6 was not at all probabilized before the Court below.
43. The time of commission of suicide by the deceased was in
broad day light. The contention of the accused that at the instance
of PWs.5 and 6 deceased proceeded to Gundalammapalem and on
the way, she fell into the river was falsified when the Penna river
was far away from Nellore city and when there was a probability
for the deceased to catch a bus at Nellore. Such line of defence is
not at all tenable. Accused had no say except the above untenable
defence as to the circumstances in which the deceased left the
house on the fateful day. There is categorical evidence of PWs.5 to
7 that accused was not available at the Government hospital by
the time they visited. Even he was not available at the time of
funerals also. During the course of cross-examination of PW.16, he
deposed that he went to the hospital at about 12:30 p.m. on
23.01.2006 and by then MRO examined the witnesses during the
inquest and they did not state anything to him. He deposed that
he tried to examine the parents of the deceased by then but they
were in sorrow mood and were engaged in taking the dead body for
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
funerals etc. A-1 did not elicit anything further from PW.16 that he
took part in the funerals of the deceased. So, the evidence on
record goes to prove that presence of A-1 can altogether be
excluded when the parents of the deceased were taking necessary
steps for funerals of the deceased. All these goes to show the guilty
conscious of the appellant. In my considered view, nothing was
probabilised from the part of A-1 showing that he was physically
present at the Government hospital when PWs.5 to 7 visited the
hospital and he participated in the funerals. As husband of the
deceased, he was bound to attend the funerals. There were no
circumstances from the line of the defence whether he attended
the funerals of the deceased. Having regard to the above, in my
considered view, that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
convincing. The evidence of PWs.5 to 7 with regard to the demand
made by A-1 to bring more money on the ground that the deceased
did not bring sufficient money is convincing. The accused wanted
to blame the deceased on the ground that the parents of the
deceased did not provide sufficient financial help to her. The above
said contention is totally improbabilised.
44. Now turning to the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Raman Kumar (2nd supra), the evidence of the prosecution
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
witnesses suffers with exaggerations and omissions and the
judgment of the High Court of Punjab was held to be sketchy and
devoid of reasons. There was a mention in the history sheet of the
hospital that the deceased came into contact with the fire when
she tried to ignite the gas stove. The said history sheet was said to
be written by a Doctor. In the letter purported to be written by the
deceased, there was no whisper about the demand of dowry.
Looking into the above infirmities in the case of the prosecution,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court allowed the Appeal and reversed the
judgment of the High Court of Punjab. The factual aspects in
Raman Kumar (2nd supra), stood on a different footing and the
same cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.
45. Turning to the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Gurdeep Singh (1st supra), the allegations were that of
administering poison to the deceased and cremation of dead body
hurriedly without intimating to the parents and the medical
evidence ruled out any possibility for administering poisonous
substance and the case of the prosecution suffered with several
infirmities. Under the circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
found favour with the case of the appellant and reversed the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
conviction. Even the factual aspects in the above said case,
obviously, stood on a different footing.
46. Another decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
G.M. Ravi (3rd supra), has nothing to do with the allegations under
Section 304-B IPC. The allegations in the above said case were of
Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and the prosecution exhibited dying
declaration which was the basis for conviction by the learned
Sessions Court and the High Court of A.P. held that the dying
declaration suffered with suspicious circumstances and reversed
the judgment of conviction. Even the factual aspects in the above
case, obviously, stood on a different footing.
47. Coming to the case on hand, death of the deceased was
within seven years of the marriage and it was happened otherwise
than under normal circumstances. As pointed out, the evidence of
PWs.5 to 7 does not suffer with any omissions or contradictions
and it is inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court.
48. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into the decision of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh v.
Raj Gopal Asawa and others4, it is a case where the learned
4 (2004) 4 SCC 470
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
Sessions Judge found favour with the case of the prosecution and
convicted A-1 to A-3. They filed an Appeal before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh and the High Court reversed the judgment of
conviction on the findings that to constitute dowry, demand
should be made directly or indirectly either at the time of marriage
or before the marriage or at any time after the marriage and that if
there was no agreement between the parties to give or take any
property or valuable security and after the marriage if further
amounts are demanded, such demand will not fall within the
meaning of dowry. While holding so, the High Court of A.P.
reversed the judgment of conviction. Then, the State of Andhra
Pradesh went for Appeal in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 1998 before
the Hon‟ble Apex Court. The Hon‟ble Apex Court dealt with the
essential ingredients Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and further
looked into the term dowry as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and held that under Section 304-B IPC
demand of dowry itself is punishable and it neither conceives or
conceive of any agreement. If for convicting any offender,
agreement for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would
come under the clutches of law.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
49. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raj Gopal Asawa (4th supra) at
Para Nos.6 and 7 dealt with the essential ingredients of Sections
304-B and 498-A IPC and further the definition of the word
„dowry' in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and dealt with
the issue elaborately at Para Nos.8 to 11. It is necessary to extract
here the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as above:
"8. Explanation to Section 304B refers to dowry "as having
the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Act", the question
is : what is the periphery of the dowry as defined therein?
The argument is, there has to be an agreement at the time
of the marriage in view of the words "agreed to be given"
occurring therein, and in the absence of any such evidence
it would not constitute to be a dowry. It is noticeable, as
this definition by amendment includes not only the period
before and at the marriage but also the period subsequent
to the marriage. This position was highlighted in Pawan
Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1998 CriLJ 1 144) .
9. The offence alleged against the respondents is under
Section 304B IPC which makes "demand of dowry" itself
punishable. Demand neither conceives nor would conceive
of any agreement. If for convicting any offender, agreement
for dowry is to be proved, hardly any offenders would come
under the clutches of law. When Section 304B refers to
"demand of dowry", it refers to the demand of property or
valuable security as referred to in the definition of "dowry"
under the Act. The argument that there is no demand of
dowry, in the present case, has no force. In cases of dowry
deaths and suicides, circumstantial evidence plays an
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
important role and inferences can be drawn on the basis of
such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. It is
significant that Section 4 of the Act, was also amended by
means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is an offence to
demand dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or
other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word "agreement"
referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The interpretation that the
respondents seek, that conviction can only be if there is
agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be
contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "Dowry"
definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of
the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking
dowry and Section 4 which deals with a penalty for
demanding dowry, under the Act and the IPC. This makes it
clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being
satisfied is punishable. It is not always necessary that there
be any agreement for dowry.
10. Section 113B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the
case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of
the Evidence Act were inserted as noted earlier by the
Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view
to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section
113B reads as follows:-
"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 has been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section
'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as
in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860)."
The necessity for insertion of the two provisions has been
amply analysed by the Law Commission of India in its 21 st
Report dated 10th August, 1988 on 'Dowry Deaths and Law
Reform'. Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing
law in securing evidence to prove dowry related deaths,
legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to
presumption of dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It
is in this background presumptive Section 113B in the
Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the definition of
'dowry death' in Section 304B IPC and the wording in the
presumptive Section 113B of the Evidence Act, one of the
essential ingredients, amongst others, in both the provisions
is that the concerned woman must have been "soon before
her death" subjected to cruelty or harassment "for or in
connection with the demand of dowry". Presumption under
Section 113B is a presumption of law. On proof of the
essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the
Court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the
dowry death. The presumption shall be raised only on proof
of the following essentials:
(1) The question before the Court must be
whether the accused has committed the dowry
death of a woman. (This means that the
presumption can be raised only if the accused
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
is being tried for the offence under Section
304B IPC).
(2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon
before her death.
11. A conjoint reading of Section 113B of the Evidence Act
and Section 304B IPC shows that there must be material to
show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to
cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the
possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it
within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in
normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is very
relevant where Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is
obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was
cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption
operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by
prosecution. 'Soon before' is a relative term and it would
depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-
jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute
a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be
hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in
the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an
offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption
under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. The expression
'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section
304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been
indicated and the expression 'soon before' is not defined. A
reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114.
Illustration (a) of the Evidence At is relevant. It lays down
that a Court may presume that a man who is in the
possession of goods 'soon after the theft, is either the thief
has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he
can account for his possession. The determination of the
period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left
to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and
circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate
that the expression 'soon before' would normally imply that
the interval should not be much between the concerned
cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There
must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned
death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and
has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium
of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence".
50. The Hon‟ble Apex Court while holding that the evidence
established the charges against A-1, believed the evidence of
PWs.2 to 4 and 6. Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Apex Court allowed the
Appeal thereby reversing the judgment of the High Court as
against A-1 but dismissed the Appeal insofar as respondent No.2
(A-3) is concerned. The Appeal against A-2 stood abated even
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
51. In the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raj
Gopal Asawa (4th supra), there need not be any agreement at the
time of marriage with regard to the dowry. Coming to the case on
hand, as pointed out, the death of the deceased was otherwise
under normal circumstances and it was within the period of 7
years from the date of marriage. The evidence of PWs.5 to 7 and 9
with regard to the harassment meted out to the deceased by A-1
with demand for additional dowry is convincing. The evidence of
PW.7 categorically proves the fact that A-1 on 22.01.2006,
telephoned to PW.7 and stated that he is sending her to
Hyderabad and PW.7 objected for the same and asked him that he
would send his parents and again A-1 informed him that he would
send the deceased to Bitragunta to his maternal grand mother and
then PW.7 intimated him that she is at Balajinagar and even
asked him not to send the deceased even to Balajinagar and that
he would send his parents. This portion of the evidence of PW.7 is
not an omission, as pointed out, and A-1 did not elicit anything
from the mouth of PW.18 in this regard. A-1 had no probable say
as to the circumstances in which the deceased came out from the
house on 22.01.2006. On the other hand, the case of the
prosecution that on the fateful day A-1 drove out the deceased to
her parents house to bring the amounts is fully established by the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
prosecution. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view that the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 and 9 to the effect that A-1
demanded amounts from the deceased towards additional dowry is
believable. Hence, I am of the considered view that another
essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC that the deceased was
subjected to harassment soon before her death is categorically
established by the prosecution. The prosecution has the benefit of
the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. It reads as follows:
"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 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."
52. Apart from the evidence of PWs.5 to 7 and 9, whose evidence
is convincing, the prosecution had the benefit of presumption
under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the accused
failed to prove contra. The appreciation of evidence by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge as evident from the judgment of the
Court below is on correct lines. Under the circumstances, I am of
the considered view that the prosecution before the Court below
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.588/2009
categorically established the charges under Sections 498-A and
304-B IPC against the appellant/A-1 beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
53. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 in
Sessions Case No.103 of 2007, dated 23.05.2009, on the file of the
Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Nellore.
54. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under
Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court including
the trial Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before
13.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take
necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the
appellant/A-1 in S.C. No.103 of 2007, dated 23.05.2009, and to
report compliance to this Court. A copy of this judgment be placed
before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary
instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 04.04.2023
DSH
