Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kotakonda Dharmaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 13 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2010
Between:
Kotakonda Dharmaiah,
S/o.K.Subramanyam,
Caste:Vodde Boya, Aged 26 years,
R/o.Lakshmipuram, Jakkalavaripalli Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District. .... Appellant/Accused (A-1)
Versus
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.,
Amaravathi. .... Respondent/Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 13.10.2023
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 wishes to see
The fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
,,
______________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2010
% 13.10.2023
# Between:
Kotakonda Dharmaiah,
S/o.K.Subramanyam,
Caste:Vodde Boya, Aged 26 years,
R/o.Lakshmipuram, Jakkalavaripalli Village,
Chandragiri Mandal,
Chittoor District. .... Appellant/Accused (A-1)
Versus
The State of A.P.,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.,
Amaravathi. .... Respondent/Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T.D. Phani Kumar,
Rep. Harinath Reddy
Soma.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N. Sravan Kumar,
Learned Special Asst.
Rep. Learned Public
Prosecutor.
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2015) 3 SCC 724
2. (2018) 10 SCC 593
3. (2004) 4 SCC 470 = 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 642 (SC)
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
The judgment, dated 06.08.2010, in Sessions Case No.25 of
2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati (for
short, „the learned Additional Sessions Judge‟), is under challenge
in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, who was the
unsuccessful accused No.1 in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. The appellant herein (A-1) faced trial under Section 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „the IPC‟) before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and he was found guilty of the
charge under Section 304-B IPC as such he was convicted under
Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 7 years.
3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
4. The Sessions Case No.25 of 2008 arose out of the committal
order in Preliminary Registration Case (PRC) No.53 of 2007 on the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Tirupati (for short, „the learned Magistrate‟) pertaining to Crime
No.6 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station, Chittoor District for the
offence under Section 304-B IPC.
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Tirupati (LW.23)
filed charge sheet in Crime No.6 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police
Station alleging the offence under Section 304-B IPC against the
accused Nos.1 to 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set
out in the charge sheet, is as follows:
(i) The marriage of K. Varalakshmi (hereinafter referred
to as „the deceased‟) was celebrated with one K. Dharmaiah (A-1) 6
years prior to the incident, as per the Hindu rites and customs. At
that time, parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.30,000/- and 8
sovereigns of gold ornaments, apart from the household articles.
After marriage, the deceased joined with the company of accused
and lived happily for 10 days. Later, all the accused started
harassing the deceased for want of additional articles and Ugadi
Sangyam. The parents of the deceased failed to comply their
demand. On that count, accused continuously harassed the
deceased both physically and mentally. In this connection,
Dalavayi Mani Kumar @ Mani (LW.6) and Pediri Krishna Reddy
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
(LW.7) held mediation many times but in vain. The sister-in-law of
the deceased viz., Rekha also threatened the deceased for want of
additional dowry and instigated accused No.1 to demand
additional amounts from the deceased. Deceased informed her
parents about the harassment made by all the accused.
Ultimately, unable to bear with the harassment, the deceased, on
08.01.2007, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison.
Having come to know about the incident, Valipi Nagamma (LW.1),
mother of the deceased, presented a report to the Police.
(ii) On the strength of the report made by the mother of
deceased, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandragiri Police
Station (LW.22), registered the report as a case in Crime No.6 of
2007 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and submitted
copies of FIR to all the concerned. The SDPO, Tirupati (LW.23),
during the course of investigation, requisitioned the Mandal
Executive Magistrate, Chandragiri (LW.21) to conduct inquest over
the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, LW.21 conducted
inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of
panchayatdars and blood relatives of the deceased. He also
examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses i.e., Valipi
Nagamma (LW.1), Devalla Chinnaswamy (LW.2), Valipi Ravi
(LW.3), Kolla Chandra Sekhar (LW.4) and Kolla Amaravathi (LW.5).
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
(iii) During the course of investigation, the SDPO, Tirupati
visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and prepared
the scene observation mahazar on 09.06.2007 at 05:30 p.m., duly
attested by the mediators. He drew rough sketch of the scene and
got photographed the same. He forwarded the dead body to the
Professor, Forensic Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Medical College
(SVMC), Tirupati for conducting post-mortem examination. Dr. K.
Bhaskar Reddy (LW.20), Professor, Forensic Medicine, SVMC,
Tirupati conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body
of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a
consequence of Organophosphate, an insecticide poison. During
investigation, the SDPO, Tirupati arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3
at 11:45 a.m. at Chandragiri and forwarded them to the Court on
14.01.2007 for remand. The Investigating Officer arrested accused
No.4, who was a juvenile, on 14.01.2007 and forwarded her to the
learned III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati and later
she was forwarded to the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate-
cum-Juvenile Magistrate, Hyderabad for remand (for short, „the
Juvenile Magistrate‟). The SDPO, Tirupati forwarded the Material
Objects to the Director, RFSL, Tirupati for examination. The
Scientific Officer, who examined the MOs.1 to 4, gave his report
and according to him, Organophosphate and insecticide poison is
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
found in Item Nos.1, 2 and 3 but not in Item No.4 of the MOs. The
Investigation disclosed that accused Nos.1 to 3 and juvenile (A-4)
harassed the deceased both physically and mentally for want of
additional amounts and created the circumstances which
compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused
Nos.1 to 4 are liable for punishment under Section 304-B IPC.
(iv) A separate charge sheet has been filed against the
juvenile (A-4) before the Juvenile Magistrate at Hyderabad. Hence,
A-1 to A-3 are liable for the charge.
6. The learned Magistrate, Tirupati took cognizance of the case
for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and numbered it as PRC
No.53 of 2007. After compliance of the necessary formalities under
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
„the Cr.P.C‟) and exercising the powers under Section 209 Cr.P.C,
the learned Magistrate committed PRC No.53 of 2007 to the Court
of Session. Thereafter, it was numbered as S.C. No.25 of 2008 and
was made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
for disposal in accordance with law.
7. After appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and after following the
procedure under Section 228 Cr.P.C, a charge under Section 304-
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
B IPC was framed against accused Nos.1 to 3 and explained to
them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
8. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the
prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
examined PWs.1 to PW.18 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and
MOs.1 to 4 and the defence got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2 were
marked.
9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused
Nos.1 to 3 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 incriminating
circumstances and stated that they did not commit any offence
and they have no defence witnesses.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both
sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, found accused No.2 and A-3, father and mother of accused
No.1, not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B IPC and
acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge found accused No.1, husband of the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
deceased, guilty of the charge under Section 304-B IPC, convicted
him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about
the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above.
11. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused No.1
filed the present Appeal.
12. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that as
against the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in
acquitting Accused Nos.2 and A-3 of the charge under Section
304-B IPC, the prosecution did not file any Appeal. So, the scope
of this Appeal is confined to the appellant/Accused No.1.
13. In the light of the contentions advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent in
deciding this Appeal, the points that arise for determination are as
follows:
1) Whether prosecution before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge proved the fact that the death of the
deceased viz., K. Varalakshmi was other than under
normal circumstances and un-natural within a period
of 7 years from the date of her marriage?
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
2) Whether the prosecution proved that accused No.1,
soon before the death of deceased, subjected her to
cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand
for dowry?
3) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved the charge under Section 304-B IPC against
accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt?
4) Whether judgment is sustainable under law and
facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere
with the impugned judgment?
POINT Nos.1 to 4:
14. Before going to deal with the contentions of both sides, this
Court would like to further make a mention here that appellant/
accused No.1 got the sentence against him suspended at the time
of admission of the Appeal on 24.08.2010 vide order in Crl.A.M.P.
No.1507 of 2010. Subsequently, when he was not pursing the
Appeal and there was no representation on his behalf, this Court
after giving him several opportunities, revoked the order, dated
24.08.2010, on 26.07.2023 and issued the Non Bailable Warrant
(NBW) against the accused with a direction to the Police to execute
NBW and produce him before the learned Additional Sessions
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
Judge and on such production, conviction warrant shall be
entrusted to carry out the sentence pending disposal of the
Appeal. In pursuance of the NBW issued against accused No.1,
Police arrested and produced him before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, who entrusted the conviction warrant. So, as of
now, the appellant/accused No.1 is in the Central Prison, Kadapa
undergoing imprisonment pending disposal of the Appeal.
15. Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri
Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellant, would
contend that the prosecution did not prove the date of marriage of
the deceased with the accused No.1. There is no dispute about the
marriage of the deceased with accused No.1. Evidence is missing
as to the date of their marriage. Accused set forth a contention
that the marriage took place beyond 7 years prior to the death of
the deceased. So, the prosecution failed to prove the date of
marriage and further failed to prove that the death of the deceased
was within the period of 7 years of her marriage. None of the
prosecution witnesses spoke about the date of marriage. The case
of the prosecution that the marriage took place 6 years prior to the
death is nothing but vague. So, the prosecution failed to establish
one of the essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC. The defence
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
of the accused is that the deceased was suffering with severe
stomach pain and ulcers and unable to bear with the same, she
died. Though, there was no medical proof with regard to the
ailment of the deceased, but some of the prosecution witnesses,
who did not support the case of the prosecution, in their cross-
examination by the learned defence counsel admitted about this.
So, as the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted about the
ill-health of the deceased, accused need not file any documentary
proof etc. PW.1, brother of the deceased, was not a witness to the
so called harassment meted out by the deceased. So, PW.1 is
nothing but a hearsay witness. According to Ex.P-14, the report
lodged by mother of the deceased, one Krishna Reddy also involved
in mediating the issue but the prosecution did not examine the
said Krishna Reddy. The prosecution, for obvious reasons, did not
examine the mother of deceased. Parents of the deceased are the
proper persons to speak about the so called harassment. Even the
Investigating Officer did not cite father of the deceased as a
witness. Evidence is lacking that soon before death the deceased
was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Even the evidence did not
disclose any offence under Section 498-A IPC. The case against
juvenile (A-4) was tried before the Juvenile Magistrate at
Hyderabad where PW.8 herein totally introduced a contrary
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
version and his evidence in the relevant Calendar Case No.51 of
2008 was confronted and the evidence of PW.8 is not believable.
Evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is interested in nature. The Evidence
of PW.7, the junior paternal uncle of the deceased, is also
interested in nature. When there was no direct evidence to speak
about the harassment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
based on the hearsay evidence and interested testimony erred in
convicting the accused No.1. Learned counsel in support of his
contention would rely upon a decision of the Apex Court in Sher
Singh alias Partapa v. State of Haryana1. With the above
contentions, learned counsel submits that the appellant/accused
No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt.
16. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant,
representing learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that there
was consistent evidence before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge to prove that the death of the deceased was within 7 years
from the date of her marriage. Though there was no date spoken to
by the prosecution witnesses but they categorically deposed that 6
years prior to the death, her marriage was performed. The record
reveals that prosecution could not examine Valipi Nagamma
1 (2015) 3 SCC 724
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
(LW.1), mother of the deceased, because she died. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge could not make a mention about her
death in the judgment. The Investigating Officer though did not
examine father of the deceased, for any reason, but it is not fatal
to the case of prosecution. The report under Ex.P-14 could be
marked through the Investigating Officer only. PW.1 is no other
than the brother of deceased. PW.2 is the sister of the deceased.
They supported the case of prosecution. Apart from that, PW.7
and PW.8 also supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution
proved the mediation conducted by the mediators to counsel the
accused not to demand any dowry. Though some of the witnesses
turned hostile to the case of prosecution but it cannot be a ground
to acquit the accused No.1. The defence of the accused before the
trial Court is nothing but evasive. Even according to the answers
elicited by accused No.1 from the prosecution witnesses, accused
No.1 and the deceased used to reside separately in a house by
separating themselves from accused Nos.2 and 3. The death of the
deceased was during the night of 08.01.2007 in the house of
accused No.1, which was other than under normal circumstances.
Except a vague plea that the deceased was suffering with stomach
pain and ulcers, no piece of paper is filed by the accused to
probabilize such a theory. The cause of death was not in dispute.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
Some of the prosecution witnesses by turning them to hostile,
deposed about the ill-health of the deceased which is not at all
believable. The prosecution discharged its burden to prove that the
death of the deceased was un-natural i.e., otherwise than under
normal circumstances and it was happened within 7 years from
the date of her marriage and further there was satisfactory
evidence to show the harassment meted out to the deceased and
the accused failed to prove contrary. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge rightly analyzed the evidence on record and
believed the case of prosecution as such there are no grounds to
interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. In support of his
contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Apex Court in
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab2.
17. PW.1 before the trial Court is no other than the brother of
the deceased. His evidence is that the deceased K. Varalakshmi is
his sister. Accused No.1 is the husband of her deceased sister.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the deceased.
Marriage of her sister was performed 5 years prior to her death.
His sister died 3 years ago. He came to know that his deceased
sister was harassed by the accused for want of additional dowry.
2 (2018) 10 SCC 593
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
His mother was telling the said fact to him. He placed the matter 3
months prior to her death before the elders in the village i.e.,
Krishna Reddy etc. Even after the panchayat held before the
elders, his sister was being harassed by the accused. On
09.01.2007, he received a phone call from the house of the
accused about the death of his sister. They filed a Police case
suspecting that the accused might have caused her death.
18. PW.2 is the elder sister of the deceased and her evidence is
that the deceased is her younger sister. Accused No.1 is the
husband of her sister. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law
of the deceased. Her sister died 3 years back. Accused used to
demand dowry and beat her sister and sent her. Mediation was
held in the village through village elders. Her sister was sent back
to home and she (PW.2) gave her gold ornaments to her. After she
went to the house of the accused, again they insisted for
additional dowry. Therefore, her sister died.
19. PW.3 did not support the case of prosecution. Prosecution
got declared him as hostile and during his cross-examination, he
denied that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-2, his 161 Cr.P.C
statement before the Police.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
20. PW.4 is also a hostile witness but did not support the case
of prosecution. Prosecution got marked her 161 Cr.P.C statement
by way of confrontation, which is Ex.P-3.
21. Similar is the case in respect of the evidence of PW.5, who
did not support the case of prosecution. Prosecution got marked
his 161 Cr.P.C statement by way of confrontation, which is Ex.P-4.
22. Prosecution examined PW.6, who deposed that on
08.01.2007, Varalakshmi telephoned to him in the evening asking
him to come to her house so as to take her to her parents house
else she will die. Then, he told her that he is at Tirupati as such he
did not attend. He informed the same to his friend, who in turn
passed the information to the parents of the deceased. On the next
day morning, he came to know about the death of the deceased.
23. Prosecution examined PW.7, junior paternal uncle of the
deceased, who deposed that 5 years prior to the death of the
deceased, she was given in marriage to accused No.1. At one stage,
deceased came to her parents house and mediation was effected
with the village elders. Village elders in that connection pacified
the matter with regard to the additional dowry amount made by
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
the accused. Three months thereafter, he came to know that
Varalakshmi died.
24. According to the evidence of PW.8, village elder, 3 years back
Varalakshmi died. Varalakshmi told him that the accused was
demanding her to bring some amount and asked him to come to
her village to mediate the issue. Then, he went to the village of the
accused and held mediation. They left the deceased Varalakshmi
at the house of the accused after pacifying the matter. Two months
thereafter somebody told him that Varalakshmi died. He came to
know that Varalakshmi took the poison and died. Police examined
him.
25. PW.9 and PW.10 did not support the case of prosecution.
Prosecution got marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P-5 and
P-6 respectively by way of confrontation.
26. PW.11 is the inquest panchayatdar who deposed that he
knows the accused and the deceased. When she was in the
Panchayat office, Talaries (Village Revenue Assistants) of their
village came to him and informed that one woman, who is resident
of Jakkalavaripalle, consumed poison and died. He was present
when the inquest was held by the Police. She signed in the inquest
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
report - Ex.P-7. Ramesh (LW.18) and some others also signed in
the inquest report.
27. PW.12 deposed that he signed in Ex.P-7 when panchayat
was held at the place where the deceased died. He signed in the
inquest report. With regard to seizure of poison etc., he deposed
that nothing was seized in his presence by the Police. Prosecution
got declared him as hostile and during his cross-examination, he
denied that at the time of preparation of mahazar, a tin containing
some pesticide was seized by the Police.
28. PW.13, mahazar witness for seizure of the poison, did not
support the case of prosecution. During his cross-examination by
the learned Special Public Prosecutor, he denied that in his
presence Police seized a tin of pesticide and that he is deposing
false.
29. PW.14, the then Mandal Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar),
supported the case of prosecution with regard to the inquest held
by him on 09.01.2007 over the dead body of deceased
Varalakshmi and his recording statements of V. Nagamma (LW.1),
D. Chinnaswamy (LW.2), PW.1, Kolla Chandrasekhar (LW.4), PW.2
and PW.11. PW.1 stated before him as in Ex.P-1.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
30. PW.15 is a hostile witness and she did not support the case
of prosecution. Prosecution got marked Ex.P-10, her 161 Cr.P.C
statement by way of confrontation.
31. Prosecution examined PW.16, Dr. K. Bhaskar Reddy,
Professor of Forensic Medicine in SVMC, Tirupati. He deposed that
on 10.01.2007, MRO and MEO of Chandragiri gave a requisition to
him to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of
Varalakshmi. He conducted postmortem examination on the same
day between 10:30 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. He then found three ante-
mortem wounds as mentioned in the post-mortem certificate,
which are as follows:
1) Abrasion of 6 x 2 CM over right side of chest, 10 CM
below the Axilla, brown in colour.
2) Multiple scratches of 4 to 5 CM x 0.2 CM each with
different directions over front of left leg with black
scab.
3) Contusion of 5 x 5 CM over front of upper chest in
midline, brown in colour.
He deposed that all the wounds are ante mortem in nature.
He preserved viscera for chemical examination. According to him,
the deceased died about 36 to 48 hours prior to his post-mortem
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
examination. Ex.P-11 is the post-mortem certificate. After receipt
of chemical analysis opinion, he opined that the deceased appears
to have died as a consequence of Organophosphate, an insecticide
poison. Ex.P-12 is the RFSL report. Ex.P-13 is the final opinion.
32. PW.17 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who
deposed that on 09.01.2007, while he was in the Police Station as
in-charge SHO, Nagamma (LW.1) came to the Police Station and
presented a report. Ex.P-14 is the report and he registered it as a
case in Crime No.6 of 2007 for the offence under Section 304-B
IPC and submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned for further
investigation.
33. Turning to the evidence of PW.18, who was the Investigating
Officer, he deposed that on 09.01.2007, he took up investigation
from ASI, Chandragiri. He visited the spot on the same day. He
sent a requisition to the MRO, Chandragiri to hold inquest over
the dead body of the deceased. On that, the MRO, Chandragiri
visited the spot at Jakkalavaripalle, hamlet of Lakshmipuram and
held inquest over the dead body of deceased. He examined and
recorded the statements of V. Nagamma (LW.1), D. Chinnaswamy
(LW.2), PW.1, Kolla Chandrasekhar (LW.4), PW.2, PW.3 and P.
Krishna Reddy (LW.7). Witnesses stated before him as in their 161
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
Cr.P.C statements. PW.3 stated before him as in Ex.P-2. He
conducted panchanama at the scene of offence, which is Ex.P-16.
During the said panchanama, he seized a poison bottle from
nearby the spot. MO.1 is white coloured plastic bottle. He
prepared rough sketch, which is Ex.P-17. On 11.01.2007, he
further examined and recorded the statements of PW.4, PW.5 and
PW.15. They stated before him as in their 161 Cr.P.C statements
i.e., Exs.P-3, P-4 and P.10. On 12.01.2007, he examined and
recorded the statements of PW.6, PW.7, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10.
PW.9 and PW.10 stated before him as in Exs.P-5 and P-6. On
14.01.2007, as per his instructions, Head Constable-781,
apprehended A-1 to A-4 and produced them before him at
Chandragiri Police Station. He effected arrest of the accused. He
sent A-1 to A-3 to III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Tirupati and sent A-4 to Juvenile Court i.e., XVIII Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Hyderabad for remand. During inquest, MRO
seized the wearing clothes of the deceased, blue colour jacket,
white pavada and saree. MO.2 is blue coloured blouse. MO.3 is
petty coat and MO.4 is saree. After obtaining the chemical analysis
opinion with regard to the viscera and after obtaining final opinion
from the Medical Officer, he filed charge sheet in this case.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
34. Admittedly, it is a case where PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.9,
PW.10, PW.12, PW.13 and PW.15 did not support the case of
prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor got marked the
161 Cr.P.C statements of them, which are Exs.P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5,
P-6 and P-10 and the Investigating Officer deposed the same.
Barring the evidence of the above witnesses, there remains the
testimony of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 in support of the
allegations in the case of prosecution is concerned. It is apposite to
make a mention here that V. Nagamma (LW.1) is the mother of the
deceased. It was she who lodged Ex.P-14 report, which was
marked through the Investigating Officer. Arguments were
advanced before the trial Court about non-examination of mother
and father of the deceased. Unfortunately, the trial Court did not
notice the fact that LW.1 was given up by the prosecution with a
specific endorsement in the charge sheet that she died. There is no
dispute that the father of the deceased was not examined. So, the
prosecution could not examine the de-facto complainant i.e., LW.1
as she died during the course of trial. On account of the same, no
adverse inference can be drawn against the case of the
prosecution.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
35. Now, firstly, this Court has to look into as to whether the
death of the deceased was within a period of 7 years from the date
of her marriage. Admittedly, neither the prosecution nor the
accused have come up with any version as regards the date of
marriage of the deceased with accused No.1.
36. Coming to the testimony of PW.1, brother of the deceased,
he deposed that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1
was performed 5 years ago prior to her death. Her sister died
about 3 years back. His date of examination before the trial Court
was on 04.03.2010. Accused did not dispute the evidence of PW.1
that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was
performed 5 years prior to her death. Accused did not put forth
any contra version during the course of cross-examination as if
such marriage was performed beyond 7 years prior to her death.
37. Coming to the testimony of PW.2, sister of the deceased, she
did not speak about when the marriage was performed. Even
accused did not put forth any version that the marriage was
performed beyond 7 years prior to her death.
38. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, junior paternal uncle of the
deceased, he deposed that about 5 years prior to death, deceased
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
was given in marriage to accused No.1. Even his evidence in this
regard is not challenged by the accused. Accused did not put forth
anything before PW.7 that the marriage was performed beyond 7
years prior to the death of the deceased.
39. Turning to the evidence of PW.8 in the chief-examination, he
did not speak about when the marriage of the deceased with
accused No.1 was performed. It is a fact that insofar as the so
called accused No.4 is concerned, who was a juvenile at the time
of alleged offence, separate trial was conducted before the Juvenile
Court at Hyderabad in C.C. No.51 of 2008 in which PW.8 herein
deposed. In that view of the matter, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were referred
to PW.8, which were nothing but the relevant portions of his
evidence before the Juvenile Court. During his cross-examination,
he deposed that he did not know when the marriage of the
deceased was performed with accused No.1. He did not state
before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-
Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board at Hyderabad that
the marriage was performed 10 years back as in Ex.D-2. As seen
from Ex.D-2, it is the copy of deposition of PW.8 herein as PW.8 in
C.C. No.51 of 2008, wherein he deposed that he did not know
when exactly marriage took place but to his memory, it was about
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
20 years ago. It is to be noted that no reliance can be placed upon
such answers spoken by PW.8 during the course of his cross-
examination in C.C. No.51 of 2008 for the reason that as on the
date of death, the deceased was aged about 25 years and PW.8
deposed in the above said case on 29.08.2008 i.e., one year after
death of the deceased. If that answer is taken into consideration,
the marriage of the deceased must have been performed at her 5th
or 6th year. So, it is quite improbable to assume that the marriage
of deceased was performed when she was aged about 5 or 6 years.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not place reliance on
Exs.D-1 and D-2. So, the evidence of PW.8 is of no use to the
defence of the accused to contend that he deposed that marriage
was performed beyond 7 years prior to her death. PW.8 herein has
deposed that he did not state before the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate that the marriage was performed 10 years
back. Literally there was no such answer in Ex.D-2. What he
deposed was that 20 years ago, marriage was performed to his
knowledge, which is quite improbable. Under the circumstances
the evidence of PW.8 is of no use to the defence of the accused.
40. Turning to the evidence of PW.18, Investigating Officer,
during cross-examination, he deposed that none of the witnesses
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
examined by him stated about the specific date of marriage
between the accused and deceased. He volunteers that they have
stated that the marriage was performed 6 years back. He denied
that marriage of Varalakshmi was performed with accused No.1, 7
years back to the date of incident. It is to be noted that without
challenging the evidence of PW.1, brother of the deceased, and
PW.7, junior paternal uncle of the deceased, who categorically
testified that the marriage was performed about 5 years prior to
the death, accused cannot put forth a suggestion before PW.18 as
if the marriage of the deceased was performed beyond 7 years
prior to the death of the deceased. Even accused did not put forth
any version as to the date of marriage.
41. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that
PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 are the proper persons to speak as to when
the marriage was performed and their evidence is consistent that
the marriage was performed between the deceased and accused
No.1 within 7 years prior to her death. The evidence adduced by
the prosecution in this regard is convincing. Simply because none
of the witnesses stated about the date of marriage, it cannot be
assumed that their evidence is false. Hence, I am of the considered
view that there is satisfactory evidence to prove the fact that the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
death of the deceased was within 7 years prior to the date of
marriage.
42. Another crucial aspect to be considered now is as to whether
the death of the deceased was otherwise than in normal
circumstances.
43. According to PW.1, he received phone call on 09.01.2007
from the house of the accused about the death of the deceased
and then they filed the Police case suspecting that the accused
might have caused her death. During cross-examination, he
denied a suggestion that his sister died due to severe stomachache
and ulcers. Coming to the cross-examination part of PW.2, she
denied that her sister got severe stomach pain. Such a version was
not suggested to PW.7, the junior paternal uncle of the deceased.
During the cross-examination of PW.8, he denied that
Varalakshmi died due to stomachache. It is to be noted that
according to PW.1, Ex.P-1 is his statement of him before the MRO.
Even PW.2 stated that she stated before MRO at the time of
inquest that she does not know the reason for the death. As seen
from Ex.P-1, PW.1 stated before MRO that he does not know as to
how the deceased died but there were other allegations as regards
the so called dowry harassment etc., made by the accused towards
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
the deceased. It is to be noted that having come to know about the
death of the deceased, PW.1 rushed to the village of the accused
from Ongole. After lodging of complaint by the de-facto
complainant, inquest was conducted. The case of death of the
deceased was ascertained only after post-mortem examination. At
the time of inquest under the cover of observation panchanama,
Police claimed to have seized the insecticide tin. It does not mean
that PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 were supposed to state at the time of
inquest about the cause of death of the deceased. The inquest
report under Ex.P-7 coupled with the evidence of inquest
panchayatdars i.e., PW.11, PW.12 and PW.13, conducting of
inquest by PW.14 was proved. The Investigating Officer (PW.18)
deposed about the seizure of empty tin pertaining to the pesticide
at the time of inquest. The case of the prosecution is that unable
to bear the torture of the accused, the deceased consumed
insecticide poison and died. Nothing was suggested before PW.1,
PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8 that the deceased did not commit suicide.
The defence of the accused before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 is totally
evasive. His contention is that the deceased died due to the
stomach pain.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
44. Now, it is appropriate to look into the evidence of PW.16,
Professor of Forensic Medicine in SVMC, Tirupati. His evidence is
that he preserved viscera at the time of post-mortem examination
and after receipt of the chemical analysis opinion regarding the
viscera, he gave final opinion on 30.03.2007 that the deceased
would appear to have died as a consequence of Organophosphate
insecticide poison. As evident from Ex.P-12 - RFSL report and
Ex.P-13 - the final opinion, cause of death of the deceased was
due to Organophosphate insecticide poison. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.16, accused did not dispute the case of
death. His defence was confined with an anxiety to explain about
the injuries sustained by the deceased i.e., ante-mortem in nature.
He elicited from the mouth of PW.16 that there is possibility for
sustaining injuries stated by him due to the struggle due to pain
after consuming the insecticide poison. So, ultimately accused
admitted suicide theory at the time of cross-examination of PW.16.
45. He elicited from the mouth of Investigating Officer during
the course of cross-examination that he noted two houses in
Ex.P-17 - rough sketch and the two belongs to the accused. It is a
fact that accused No.1 and the deceased used to reside in the
house of eastern side and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to reside on
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
the western side. All the huts are very closely located. So, by virtue
of the evidence of PW.18 - Investigating Officer, it is very clear that
the defence theory is that accused No.1 and the deceased used to
reside in the house of eastern side. There were ante-mortem
injuries sustained by the deceased. Of course, cause of death was
not due to ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased. The defence of the accused is that those ante-mortem
injuries might have been caused when the deceased was
struggling after consumption of insecticide poison. It is to be noted
that when accused No.1 and the deceased were residing together
in a small house and the death of the deceased was during night
after 08:00 p.m. what he was doing when the deceased was in the
so called struggle violently after consumption of insecticide poison
is not known. Prosecution need not prove the facts which are
exclusively within the knowledge of accused No.1 in view of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, „the
Evidence Act‟).
46. The defence of the accused before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 is
quite evasive attributing that the deceased died due to stomach
pain. When the prosecution has come up with categorical evidence
through PW.16, and got marked post-mortem report and chemical
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
analysis opinion, accused had no say except to admit that the
deceased committed suicide. Presence of ante-mortem injuries on
the person of the deceased which were received by her prior to her
death is a strong suspicious circumstance against the accused. In
normal circumstances, when the deceased and accused No.1 alone
were residing in the house at the time of death one has to assume
that there was a possibility that the accused No.1 might have
caused ante-mortem injuries. To escape from such a scenario,
accused ventured to elicit from PW.16 that those injuries might
have been possible when the deceased was struggling on account
of pain after consumption of poisonous substance. If that be the
case, reasonable reaction on the part of accused No.1 would be to
provide necessary medical aid or to make necessary reasonable
efforts to save the life of the deceased but accused No.1
maintained silence in this regard. Though, it is well established
legal principle that accused can maintain silence until the
prosecution discharge its burden but the facts which are within
the knowledge of the accused are to be explained. Failure on the
part of accused to explain how deceased received ante-mortem
injuries leads to a conclusion that accused suppressed something
with a guilty intention. This conduct on the part of the accused
ads further strength to the case of prosecution.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
47. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that
death of the deceased was within a period of 7 years after the
marriage in the four corners of the house of accused No.1, when
they were residing together. It is undoubtedly unnatural and
nothing but under normal circumstances. So, the prosecution has
categorically established this fact before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
48. Now, another crucial thing to be considered here is as to
whether the evidence on record proves that accused No.1
demanded additional dowry from the deceased as such harassed
her or subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of Section
304-B IPC.
49. PW.1 claimed the fact that he came to know about the dowry
harassment through his mother. He was no other than the brother
of deceased. In a case of this nature, parents, siblings and kith
and kin of the deceased are the natural witnesses. Further, the
elders, if any, who conducted mediation to resolve the differences
between the couple, are also the natural witnesses. Nothing is
elicited from the evidence of PW.1 that he has no family
connections with his father or the sister. He denied that his father
abandoned him due to his attitude and that he is deposing false.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
Absolutely, if the evidence of PW.1 is false, he would have deposed
that the deceased told him that she was subjected to dowry
harassment. He claimed that his mother was telling the said fact
to him. He deposed that he placed the matter 3 months prior to
death before the elders and even after panchayat, she was
subjected to harassment. So, according to the evidence of PW.1, he
took some initiative to mediate the issue.
50. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, who is no other than the
elder sister of the deceased, she deposed that accused used to
demand dowry and beat his sister and sent her and in this regard
mediation was held through the village elders. She was again sent
back and later she went to the house of accused, where the
accused again demanded her for additional dowry. During the
course of cross-examination, she denied that no such harassment
was there.
51. As seen from the evidence of PW.6, prior to the death,
during the evening of 08.01.2007, deceased telephoned to him and
asked him to come and take her to her parents house else she will
die. He denied that he is deposing false.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
52. Another crucial witness is PW.7, junior paternal uncle of the
deceased, who deposed that they have mediated the issue by
gathering the elders and they pacified the matter with regard to
additional dowry demand made by the accused. Subsequently, 3
months after the incident, he came to know that Varalakshmi
died. Though he admitted that he is junior paternal uncle of
Varalakshmi but on that count his evidence cannot be disbelieved.
It is quite natural that the close relations of the deceased would
take initiative in a case of this nature to resolve the differences
between the couple in the event of any dowry or any other un-
reasonable demands. Nothing is elicited during the course of
cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.
53. According to PW.8, he deposed about the demand made by
the accused and Varalakshmi told him and asked him to come to
her village to mediate the matter and he went to the village and
held mediation. They left the deceased Varalakshmi at the house
of accused after pacifying the issue. Two months thereafter
somebody told him that Varalakshmi died. To brand the evidence
of PW.8 as false, accused relied upon Ex.D-1. Ex.D-1 is the part of
deposition of PW.8 in C.C. No.51 of 2008 before the Juvenile Court
at Hyderabad where he deposed that there was beating of the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
accused with sticks etc. It is to be noted that simply because PW.8
improved the evidence in C.C. No.51 of 2008, his evidence herein
which is not suffering with any improvements cannot be
disbelieved. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused beat
the deceased with sticks etc. In my considered view, basing on
Ex.D-1, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. So, the
fact remained is that PW.7 and PW.8 were the persons who
conducted some mediation to resolve the issue between the
deceased and accused No.1. This Court having scanned the
evidence does not find any circumstance to disbelieve their
evidence. Insofar as the allegation that accused No.1 demanded
additional dowry from the deceased and subjected her to
harassment is concerned, there is satisfactory evidence adduced
by the prosecution.
54. Admittedly, in view of the language employed in Section
304-B IPC as well as Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, relating to
the presumption under dowry deaths, prosecution is bound to
establish that such demands are made soon before her death.
What is „soon before the death‟ is a question to be considered by
this Court. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in The State of Andhra
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa and others3, had an occasion to
deal with how „soon before death‟ is to be ascertained in view of the
provisions of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence
Act. It is apposite to extract here the observations of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court at Para No.11, which are as follows:
"11. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
and Section 304-B 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 113-B of the Evidence Act and
Section 304-B 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 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression
'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-
3 (2004) 4 SCC 470 = 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 642 (SC)
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present 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".
55. So, by virtue of the above, it is very clear that „soon before‟ is
a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of
each case and no straightjacket formula can be laid down as to
what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. No
definite period has been indicated. Soon before death is not
defined. The Court has to decide as to what is soon before death,
basing on the proximity test.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
56. According to the evidence of PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8 the act of
accused No.1 in making demands to bring additional dowry is a
continuing one. According to PW.7, 3 months after the mediation,
he came to know that Varalakshmi died. According to PW.8, 2
months after mediation, he came to know that Varalakshmi died.
PW.1 also deposed that 3 months prior to the death of the
deceased, he placed the issue before the elders and even after that,
his sister was being harassed. Evidence of PW.2 means that in
spite of mediation also accused No.1 demanded for additional
dowry. So, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.7 and PW.8 reveals
that the demand made by accused No.1 with regard to additional
dowry is continuing one. So, their evidence stands to the proximity
test as laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raj Gopal Asawa
(3rd supra) as such the prosecution satisfactorily explained that
there was a demand made by accused No.1 to bring additional
dowry soon before the death of the deceased. The Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Raj Gopal Asawa (3rd supra), while dealing with the
definition of „dowry', under Section 304-B IPC, referred Section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and held as follows:
"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?
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
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
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
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
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."
57. Turning to the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jagjit
Singh (2nd supra), the Apex Court at Para No.14 dealt with as to
what is „soon' before the death. The observations of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in this regard are as follows:
"14. We need only to advert to a recent judgment rendered
by a Bench consisting of three learned Judges in Rajinder
Singh v. State of Punjab {(2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Crl.) 225} only for the purpose of appreciating the words
"soon before" occurring in Section 304-B IPC. This is what
the Court has to see:
"24. We endorse what has been said by these
two decisions. Days or months are not what is
to be seen. What must be borne in mind is that
the word "soon" does not mean "immediate". A
fair and pragmatic construction keeping in
mind the great social evil that has led to the
enactment of Section 304-B would make it
clear that the expression is a relative
expression. Time-lags may differ from case to
case. All that is necessary is that the demand
for dowry should not be stale but should be
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
the continuing cause for the death of the
married woman under Section 304-B."
58. Turning to the decision cited by learned counsel for the
appellant in Sher Singh (1st supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court in fact
extensively dealt with about the standard of proof on the part of
prosecution to decide the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The
Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para No.9 held as follows:
"9. The legal regime pertaining to the death of a woman
within seven years of her marriage thus has numerous
features, inter alia:
(i) The meaning of "dowry" is as placed in Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(ii) Dowry death stands defined for all purposes in
Section 304-B IPC. It does exclude death in normal
circumstances.
(iii) If death is a result of burns or bodily injury, or
otherwise than under normal circumstances, and it occurs
within seven years of the marriage and, it is 'shown' in
contradistinction to 'proved' that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
his relatives, and the cruelty or harassment is connected
with a demand of dowry, it shall be a dowry death, and the
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her
death.
(iv) .........
(v) ..........
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
(vi) .........
(vii) The consequences and ramifications of this
'deeming' will be that the prosecution does not have to prove
anything more, and it is on the husband or his concerned
relative that the burden of proof shifts as adumbrated in
Section 113-B, which finds place in Chapter VII of the
Evidence Act. This Chapter first covers 'burden of proof' and
then "presumption", both being constant bed-fellows. In the
present context the deeming or presumption of
responsibility of death are synonymous."
59. Ultimately the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sher Singh (1st supra),
held as follows at Para No.26:
"26. .......................... It is for these reasons that we are
of the opinion that the prosecution has not
shown/presented and/or proved even by preponderance of
probabilities that the deceased had been treated with
cruelty emanating from or founded on dowry demands. It is
in the realm of a possibility that the ingestion of aluminium
phosphate may have been accidental."
60. Coming to the present case on hand, the prosecution
adduced cogent evidence to prove the allegations with reference to
Section 304-B IPC against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, it is not that the prosecution sought to prove the guilt
against the accused basing on preponderance of probabilities.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
61. As the prosecution succeeded in proving the allegations
under Section 304-B IPC, it has the benefit of presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The embodied statutory
presumption either under Section 304-B IPC and further the
specific statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act means that the Court shall presume that the death
of the deceased is on account of the demands for additional dowry.
Now, it is for the accused to prove contrary. Accused had evasive
defence before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.8 that the deceased died on
account of the stomach pain and ulcers. He is not dare enough to
challenge the findings of PW.16, Professor of Forensic Medicine in
SVMC, Tirupati that the cause of death was due to
Organophosphate poison. He did not challenge the evidence of
PW.16, Professor of Forensic Medicine in SVMC, Tirupati as to the
presence of injuries on the person of deceased. He failed to explain
what he was doing when the deceased was struggling for life after
consumption of pesticide poison. It is not his defence that he was
not present physically on the fateful day. The conduct of accused
No.1 is nothing but with a guilty intention and maintaining silence
in this regard is not sufficient on his part in view of Section 106 of
the Evidence Act. It is a fact that the accused elicited from the
mouth of PW.4 and PW.5 - hostile witnesses that the deceased was
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
suffering with ill-health. It is very difficult to accept such a
contention. No reliance can be placed on their evidence as they
turned hostile to the case of prosecution. If the deceased was
suffering with stomach pain on account of ulcers or something
else that would have been borne out by the medical evidence.
Accused did not file any piece of paper to show that the deceased
was suffering with stomach pain or ulcers. Till the examination of
PW.16, Professor of Forensic Medicine in SVMC, Tirupati, the
contention of accused is that the deceased died due to stomach
pain. Later, the accused admitted that the deceased died after
consumption of the pesticide poison. Accused miserably failed to
probabilize that the deceased was suffering with such a serious ill-
health. So, the accused No.1, who lived with the deceased for a
period of 5 or 6 years prior to her death, was the better person to
explain as to the mental condition of the deceased at the time of
offence. No semblance of explanation is forthcoming from the
mouth of the accused in this regard.
62. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that
accused miserably failed to rebut the presumption which is
available in favour of the prosecution under Section 113-B of the
Evidence Act. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
that the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge
cogently established that the deceased died within a period of 7
years from the date of her marriage otherwise than in normal
circumstances and the death of the deceased is nothing but un-
natural and the prosecution further categorically established that
she was subjected to dowry harassment by the deceased. So, the
evidence on record clearly attracts and proves the charge under
Section 304-B IPC against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering the same, the judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25 of 2008, dated
06.08.2010, is sustainable under law and facts as such the Appeal
is devoid of merits.
63. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming
conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellant/accused
No.1 in Sessions Case No.25 of 2008, dated 06.08.2010, on the file
of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati.
64. 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 trial Court on or before
21.10.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.989/2010
necessary steps to forward a copy of this judgment to the
appellant/accused No.1, who is lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa.
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: 13.10.2023
DSH
