Vemula Vamsi Kumar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 634 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.779 OF 2006

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who

was the first Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, on the

file of Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, challenging the judgment,

dated 18.04.2006, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge,

Nellore Division, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the

present petitioner (A1) is concerned, confirming the conviction

and sentence imposed against him in Sessions Case No.386 of

2003 before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore.

      2)     The   parties   to   this   Criminal   Revision   Case   will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for

the sake of the convenience.

      3)     The present petitioner along with A.2 and A.3 faced

charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code

("I.P.C." for short) before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nellore and the learned Judge acquitted A.3 under Section 235(1)

Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C" for short) for the charges

under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge

convicted the present petitioner along with A.2 under Section

235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the charges under Sections 498-A and 306
                                   2


of I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the

offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to

pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

a period of three months for the offence under Section 306 of

I.P.C. The learned Judge also sentenced A.2 to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of

Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of

three months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and

further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the

offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.      The learned Judge directed

that both the sentences of A.1 and A.2 shall run concurrently.

When A.1 and A.2 filed a Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, the

Criminal Appeal insofar as A.2 is concerned was allowed setting

aside the conviction and sentence, but insofar as the present

petitioner is concerned was dismissed.

      4)    The case of the prosecution, in brief, pertaining to

P.R.C.No.31 of 2003, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate
                                   3


of First Class, Nellore, according to the contents of the charge

sheet is as follows:

      (i) The A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3. They are resident of

Nellore. One Muppala Sulakshna (hereinafter will be referred to as

"deceased") is the wife of A.1 and belonged to Harijana caste.

L.W1-Muppala Venkatadri (P.W.2) is the father of deceased.

L.W.2-Muppala Nagabhushanamma (P.W.3) is the mother of

deceased.    L.W.3-Kami Aruna is the elder sister and L.W.4-

Muppala Asleesha (P.W.4) is second sister of deceased. The

deceased fell in love with A.1 and their marriage was done on

20.09.1999

at Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tirupati without consent of

the parents i.e., L.Ws.1 and 2. After the marriage, they went to

the house of complainant, who is working as a clerk in Punjab

National Bank, Nellore. He kept them separately in a house.

After some days, they went to the house of A.1 and started

residing there for three months. After that both the deceased and

A.1 went to the house of L.W.1 and informed that her father-in-

law behaved vulgarly. Then, L.W.1 pacified the issue and sent

them to the house of A.1. In the meantime, L.W.1 was

transferred to Tirupati.

(ii) On 06.07.2002 the deceased went to her parents' house

and informed that her husband (A.1) and his parents i.e., A.2 and

A.3 harassed her both mentally and physically for getting money

and if not, they would perform second marriage to A.1 with

daughter of cousin of A.1. L.W.1 pacified her and sent her back.

The deceased unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment

decided to commit suicide and accordingly, she committed suicide

on 10.09.2002 at 7-45 p.m. to 8-00 p.m. on 10th Lane, Lakeview

Colony, Nellore in the house of accused by hanging. On

11.09.2002 at 2-00 a.m., L.W.2 along with her second daughter

went to Tirupati and informed to L.W.1 that the deceased was in

serious condition. They rushed to Nellore at 5-00 a.m. on

11.09.2002 and they went to the house of the deceased and

found her dead body lying on a mat. They are informed that their

daughter went to the bath room and committed suicide by

hanging herself to the hook of the bath room at 7-45 p.m., on

10.09.2002. Then L.W.1 suspected the character of A.1 to A.3.

(iii) Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.15-the Sub

Inspector of Police, registered it as a case in Crime No.236 of

2002 under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. on 11.09.2002 at

5-00 a.m. and submitted FIRs. L.W.16-the Inspector of Police

took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and

examined the witnesses. L.W.14-M. Dharma Rao, Mandal

Executive Magistrate (M.R.O) conducted inquest over the dead

body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and thereafter

sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Medical

Officer conducted autopsy and found that the deceased would

appears to have been died of asphyxia due to hanging. L.W.16

arrested A.1 to A.3 on 15.09.2002 during the investigation and

sent them for remand. Hence, the charge sheet.

5) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nellore took the case on file and after complying the

necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the

case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon the case was

numbered as Sessions Case and was made over to Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore. On appearance of the accused

before the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore,

charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. were framed and

explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined

P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. After closure of the

evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances

appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same.

A.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

7) On hearing both sides and on considering the oral as

well as documentary evidence, the learned Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charges and

accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as above, but,

acquitted A.3. Then, the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 filed Criminal

Appeal No.145 of 2004, before the Sessions Judge, Nellore

Division, which was allowed insofar as A.2 is concerned and was

dismissed insofar as the present Revision Petitioner (A.1) is

concerned. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful A.1 in

Sessions Case No.386 of 2003 and first appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.145 of 2004, filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case,

the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the

judgment in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, on the file of

Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, suffers with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to

interfere with such judgment?

Point:-

9) Ms. Maheswari Harika, learned counsel, representing

the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the

learned Sessions Judge having rightly acquitted A.2, but, erred in

dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by A.1. In fact, according to

the evidence of P.W.2, the police before his lodging report came

to the scene of offence and the said discrepancy is not explained

by the Court. Without there being any legally admissible evidence,

basing on the assumptions and presumptions, the learned

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the present

petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, without proper

appreciation erred in dismissing the Criminal Appeal. In fact, the

deceased was of a sensitive lady who had tendency for

commission of suicide. In fact, having felt humiliation in the hands

of her parents only, she was compelled to commit suicide and

there was no fault on the part of the present petitioner, as such,

the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

10) In support of the case of the present Revision

Petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Gurcharan

Singh vs. State of Punjab1, (2) Gangula Mohan Reddy vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh 2 and (3) M. Mohan vs. State,

Tr.Dy.Supdt. of Police3.

11) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge insofar as the

present petitioner is concerned, rightly convicted him of the

charges and he also convicted A.2, but the learned Sessions

Court, Nellore on overall appreciation of the evidence on record,

exonerated A.2 of the charges and after thoroughly discussing the

2016 (0)SCJ Online (SC) 977

2010 LawSuits (SC) 1

2011 (2) SCJ 744

evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the present

petitioner and P.Ws.2 and 3, father and mother of deceased

respectively, clearly supported the case of the prosecution. The

evidence on record clearly proves the guilt against the present

petitioner, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be

dismissed.

12) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to

whether the death of the deceased was on account of suicide.

P.W.1, who is a neighbor, who turned hostile, even deposed that

the deceased committed suicide. According to the evidence of

P.W.2 and P.W.3, the deceased committed suicide. There is

evidence of P.W.4, the second sister of deceased, to speak to the

fact that the deceased committed suicide. P.W.5 is Doctor in

Lakeview Colony, Nellore, who examined the deceased after

commission of suicide and found her dead. He spoken the same

in his evidence. P.W.6 is the inquest panchayatdar, who did not

support the case of the prosecution, whose hostility is proved by

the prosecution by virtue of the evidence of the investigating

officer. But, he deposed that he was present at the time of

inquest over the dead body of the deceased. There is evidence of

P.W.7, the Medical Officer, stating that the deceased died due to

asphyxia by hanging. There is evidence of P.W.8, the Mandal

Revenue Officer, who was present at the time of conducting

inquest and spoken the observations in the inquest. There is also

evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer. The cause of death

of the deceased was never in dispute before the trial Court. So, it

is clear that the death of the deceased was on account of the

suicide.

13) The place of death of the deceased is also not in

dispute i.e., in the house of in-laws house where A.1 to A.3 were

residing together. The commission of the act of the deceased in

committing suicide by her was in the bath room, which is also not

in dispute.

14) Before going to appreciate the case of the

prosecution as to the allegations against the present petitionerit

becomes necessary for this Court to look into the contention of

the Revision Petitioner that even before lodging of Ex.P.2, police

came to the scene of offence and it was not considered by the

trial Court.

15) Coming to the testimony of P.W.2 in chief

examination he deposed that after reaching Nellore and after

seeing the dead body of the deceased, he lodged a report, which

is Ex.P.2. During the course of cross examination, he deposed

that at first he narrated about the incident to police and

thereupon, the police asked him to give in writing and then he

prepared a report and submitted to police. It is true that before

giving report to the police, police came to the scene of offence.

So, the evidence of P.W.2 means that the police came to the

scene of offence and when he narrated the incident, police asked

him to give a written report. I find no abnormality insofar as this

aspect is concerned. The offence under Sections 498-A and 307

of I.P.C. are cognizable. When the police came to know about the

commission of suicide by a married woman, there was nothing

wrong on their part to come to the place and asked P.W.2 to give

a report in writing clearly.

16) P.W.9 is the person, who registered FIR. His evidence

is that on 09.11.2002 at 5-00 a.m., while he was on duty in the

police station, P.W.2 came to the police station and presented

Ex.P.2 report. He registered the same as FIR and Ex.P.8 is FIR.

During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he made

some corrections in the time. The so-called corrections made by

P.W.9 cannot be taken as a deliberate one. It is not a case where

there was any delay in lodging the report. During cross

examination he denied that the report given by P.W.2 was kept

aside and statement was recorded by him to tune the case of the

prosecution.

17) It is to be noticed that Ex.P.2 is not a statement, but,

it is written report. What P.W.2 deposed in cross examination is

that when he tried to narrate the incident to police, they asked

him to give a report in writing and accordingly he presented

Ex.P.2, report. As seen from Ex.P.2, it is a written report, but it is

not a statement. So, the defence wanted to take benefit

corrections in Ex.P.2 as that of serious which is not tenable.

Apart from this, the defence tried to put forth a contention as if

police obtained a statement from P.W.2, which is not correct, in

view of the above. Hence, the above said issue is not gonging to

affect the case of the prosecution in any way.

18) Now turning to the crucial allegations in the case of

the prosecution, admittedly, the evidence available to prove the

charges are of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of the

deceased. P.W.4 is one of the sisters of the deceased, who could

speak the factum of the marriage between the deceased and A.1.

19) The substance of the evidence of P.W.2 is that on

29.09.1999 marriage of his deceased daughter with A.1 took

place at Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tirupati. After the marriage, his

daughter joined with A.1 at Nellore. 15 days after the marriage,

his daughter and A.1 came to his house and both of them

informed to him that A.2, the father of A.1 harassed his daughter

and he wants to have sexual intercourse with her. They also

intimated the same to L.W.2. So, A.1 and his daughter put up a

separate family in Lakeview Colony, Nellore. They lead marital

life happily. After one month, A.1 got down his daughter in his

house and went away stating that unless Rs.50,000/- is brought,

he would not allow his daughter into the house. Then, he

expressed his inability to do so. When he informed the same to

A.2, father of A.1, A.2 took his daughter to his house. On

request, he (P.W.2) joined her in Intermediate in Tirupati. She

completed Intermediate. She spent the entire expenses during

her studies at Tirupati. In February, 2002, he was transferred to

Tirupati. Later, his daughter joined in Degree at Nellore. On one

day his daughter informed him by phone that her husband

harassed her, demanded further dowry and also asked her to

terminate her pregnancy. She stated that she would come to

Tirupati to live along with him. He advised his daughter not to

come to Tirupati as his wife was residing at Pulivendula, as

another daughter is a bank employee at Pulivendula. On

10.09.2002 mid night his wife and second daughter came to

Tirupati and informed that his deceased daughter was in serious

condition. Immediately all of them came to Nellore and found his

daughter as dead in the house of accused. Accused stated that

the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the bath room.

Then he suspected and lodged Ex.P.2.

20) The evidence of P.W.3, the mother of deceased and

the husband of P.W.2, is also similar as that of the evidence of

P.W.2. She further testified that when she (P.W.3) was in

Pulivendula, she received information that her daughter is in

serious condition. Then she and L.W.4 came to Tirupati and from

there they went to Nellore along with P.W.2 and in the house of

accused, they found their daughter dead. P.W.2 gave report to

police.

21) P.W.4, another sister of deceased, testified about the

factum of marriage between A.1 and her deceased sister and her

co-employee informed her that they received information through

phone that her younger sister is in serious condition. During mid

night, then she along with her mother went to Tirupati and from

there along with P.W.2 came to Nellore and found her sister dead.

Her father presented the report to police.

22) P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to cross examination.

During the cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that marriage

between A.1 and deceased was a love marriage and he (P.W.2)

belonged to Schedule Caste and accused belonged to Velama

community, but he does not know the love affair. He does not

know the financial status of the accused. His daughter wanted to

study M.B.B.S., but in the meantime, she fell in love with A.1. He

denied a suggestion that A.1 paid the fee for the educational

expenses of deceased at Tirupati. The deceased used to visit the

house of accused at Nellore and also her sister at Pulivendula. He

denied a suggestion that his wife did not look after the deceased

properly as the marriage was not with her interest and that the

deceased was very sensitive. A.1 and the deceased were living

separately two or three houses away from the house of A.2 and

A.3. Insofar as the dowry is concerned, A.2 and A.3 have nothing

to do with the said allegations and their concern is only against

A.1.

23) Turning to the evidence of P.W.3 in cross examination

she deposed that her daughter got a rank in 10th class but she

does not know when she got the 5th rank. A.1 demanded

Rs.50,000/- for his business. She denied that she did not look

after her daughter well and did not cooperate for her studies. She

denied that she is deposing false.

24) It is to be noticed that the crucial allegation against

the Revision Petitioner is that he used to demand the deceased to

bring dowry and at one occasion he left her at her parents' house

with a demand that the amount is not paid, the deceased will not

be taken. Another allegation is that he pressurized the deceased

to go for abortion when she got pregnancy. It is the specific

evidence of P.W.2 that through phone call, he learnt that A.1 was

pressurizing her to terminate her pregnancy. The defence counsel

subjected P.W.2 in this regard to probing cross examination.

During the probing cross examination, he deposed that before

joining his daughter in Intermediate, she became pregnant and at

that time A.1 asked her to terminate the pregnancy, but father of

A.1 raised objection not to terminate the pregnancy. He further

testified that he came to know about the first pregnancy of his

daughter when she informed that A.1 asked him to terminate the

second pregnancy. So, according to P.W.2, he came to know the

first pregnancy when A.1 asked the deceased to terminate even

the second pregnancy. These are all the answers elicited during

the cross examination, for which no contraversion was suggested

to P.W.2 during the cross examination that A.1 did not ask the

deceased to terminate the pregnancy twice.

25) Apart from this, it is a case where P.Ws.2 and 3 fairly

admitted that insofar as allegations of dowry is concerned, they

have no grievance whatsoever against A.2 and A.3, the parents of

A.1. Their grievance at one point of time was against A.2 on the

ground that he behaved vulgarly with deceased when the

deceased and A.1 gone to the house of A.2 and A.3 during the

first fortnight of the marriage. Hence, this Court found any

amount of consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The fact

that their grievance is only against A.1 regarding the allegations

of dowry shows any amount of truth in their evidence. If really

they had any evil intention, they would not have spared A.2 and

A.3 and that they would have alleged against A.2 and A.3, that

they also demanded dowry from the deceased. Having looked into

the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that P.Ws.2 and 3 are reliable witnesses insofar

as their case that A.1 demanded the deceased to bring additional

dowry, etc.

26) Apart from this, the fact that A.1 used to insist the

deceased to terminate her pregnancy is quietly established by the

prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2 that he came to know about

the termination of the first pregnancy when his daughter

intimated to him that A.1 insisted to terminate the second

pregnancy, remained unchallenged further during the course of

probing cross examination. It is to be noticed that the marriage

between A.1 and the daughter of P.W.2 was love marriage against

the wishes of parents of both of them. In such circumstances, the

case is of such a nature that the deceased with all difficulties and

against the wishes of parents decided to sail with A.1. In such

circumstances, the act of A.1 in insisting the deceased to go for

termination of pregnancy even against the wishes of A.2 is

nothing but an act which would certainly drive the deceased to

commit suicide.

27) Apart from this, it is a case where the deceased could

found love and affection from her parents, because, when she and

A.1 within 15 days after the marriage gone back to P.Ws.2 and 3,

they took them into the fold and arranged a residence separately.

It is also borne out by from the evidence of P.W.2 that he

provided education to the deceased at Tirupati by joining her in

Intermediate even after marriage. So, the contention of the

petitioner that the deceased felt humiliated on account of the act

of P.Ws.2 and 3 and that they disliked the marriage, etc., cannot

stands to any reason. On the other hand, the evidence points out

finger against A.1 that when the deceased joined with him with

fond hope even against the wishes of her parents, he did not treat

her properly and subjected her to cruelty.

28) The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with reference to the

allegations in Ex.P.2 as regards the allegations of demand of

dowry and the allegation that A.1 insisted the deceased to go for

termination of pregnancy is fully convincing. The above said acts

are nothing but one which can drive a woman for commission of

suicide.

29) It is to be noticed that the present petitioner (A.1)

examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2.

Ex.D.1 is the so-called diary in the hands of the deceased and

Ex.D.2 is the so-called letter. He did not spell out the

circumstances how he came into custody of Ex.D.2 when it was

sent to a different person. The contention of the prosecution is

that these documents are fabricated to suit the defence.

Admittedly, A.1 did not venture to bring these documents to the

notice of the investigating officer. As rightly held by the learned

Sessions Judge, A.1 miserably failed to establish the bonafidies of

Exs.D.1 and D.2.

30) In Gurcharan Singh's case (1 supra), the factual

aspects obviously stands in different footing where there was a

suicide note alleging that the deceased was deprived of the share

in the property, etc., it cannot be made applicable to the present

case on hand. Turning to Gangula Mohan Reddy's case (2 supra),

the allegations were that an agricultural labourer was subjected to

harassment on allegations of theft of some gold ornaments. It is

also not applicable to the present case on hand. Coming to

M. Mohan's case (3 supra) it has nothing to do with the present

facts and circumstances in the case on hand. However, in the

above three decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the

essential ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. In this case, in my

considered view, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, which is totally

believable, is establishing the essential ingredients of Sections

498-A and 306 of I.P.C.

31) The date of marriage of the deceased was on

20.09.1999 and she committed suicide on 10.09.2002, which is

evidently within three years. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 runs as follows:

1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

woman.--When the question is whether the commission of

suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any

relative of her husband and it is shown that she had

committed suicide within a period of seven years from the

date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of

her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may

presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the

case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or

by such relative of her husband.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall

have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860).]

32) This provision in the Indian Evidence Act was

introduced by Act 46 of 1983 and it has come into force from

25.12.1983. Here the fact that the deceased committed suicide

within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage that

too in the house of A.1 is categorically established by the

prosecution. The allegations in Ex.P.2 are proved by the

prosecution by examining P.Ws.2 and 3 whose evidence is

convincing. So, the prosecution has the benefit of presumption

under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Apart from the

evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, which is convincing and which proves

the fact that the commission of suicide by deceased was nothing

but on accounts of A.1 which driven her to commit suicide,

even the case of the prosecution is further strengthened by virtue

of the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence

Act.

33) Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the

considered view that insofar as the Revision Petitioner is

concerned, the prosecution has categorically established the

charges against him before the Court below beyond reasonable

doubt and the judgments of both the Courts below cannot be said

to be erroneous. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in

Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004 does not suffers with any

illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The learned Sessions Judge

rightly looked into the facts and circumstances and with valid

reasons, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the petitioner is

concerned. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said

judgment.

34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

35) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the

trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the

petitioner/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, dated

18.04.2006 and to report compliance to this Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 07.02.2023.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. REVISION CASE NO.779 OF 2006

Date: 07.02.2023

PGR