Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chitturi Leela Krishana Murthy 2 Others vs The State Of A.P., on 26 June, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010783202016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3486]
AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 51/2016
Between:
Chitturi Leela Krishana Murthy & 2 Others and
Others
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of A P
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. I V N RAJU
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
All the three Accused in Sessions Case No.236 of 2012 on the
file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tanuku, West Godavari District, are the appellants in the present
Criminal Appeal. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge under the following charges:-
1).The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against
Accused Nos.1 to 3 alternatively under Section
304-B IPC; and
2). The second charge was under Section 302 read with
34 IPC alternatively under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC
against Accused Nos.1 to 3.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 29.01.2011 at about
8.00 A.M, Accused No.1 beat his wife, by name Ananta Lakshmi
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and all the three accused
administered poison into the mouth of the deceased, thereby
committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with
34 IPC alternatively under Sections 304-B and 304-B read with
34 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with
34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for
"LIFE" and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge further convicted all the three accused
under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them
to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period
of six (06) months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, is as follows:-
All the three accused are residents of Pampanavaripalem
Village, Penumantra Mandal. Accused No.1 is the husband of the
deceased, Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No.1.
PW-1 is the father, PW-2 is the mother of the deceased and
PWs-3 to 6 are relatives of the deceased. PW-1 performed the
marriage of the deceased with Accused No.1 on 20.05.2010. At the
time of marriage, PW-1 paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
dowry and one gold ring. After marriage, the deceased joined the
matrimonial home. It is alleged that right from the date of marriage,
Accused No.1 used to harass the deceased, demanding her to bring
additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and one motor cycle from her
parents. As PW-1 did not fulfil the demand of Accused No.1, he did
not send the deceased to her parents' house. The deceased
informed the said demand and harassment to PWs-1 and 2. PW-1
agreed to provide the same, as demanded by Accused No.1. In the
month of January-2011, PW-1 went to the house of Accused No.1
and invited him along with the deceased to his house for Sankranthi
festival. At that juncture, the accused said to have reiterated their
demand of Rs.50,000/- and motor cycle. PW-1 replied stating that
he will fulfil their demand during Sankranthi festival. Accused No.1
sent the deceased to the house of PW-1 for Sankranthi festival but,
Accused No.1 did not visit the house of PW-1. After festival, PW-1
took the deceased to the house of Accused and dropped her. After
one week, the deceased contacted PW-1 over phone and informed
about the demand and harassment of the accused for an additional
dowry and motor cycle. PW-1 replied stating that he will fulfil their
demand within a short period. While so, on 29.01.2010 at about
10.00 A.M, PW-1 received a phone call from Accused No.1, who
informed him that the deceased consumed poisonous granules.
Immediately, PW-1 along with PW-2 and relatives went to the house
of accused and found the deceased lying dead. PW-1 also found a
contusion below the right arm of the deceased. Having suspected
that the accused might have killed the deceased, PW-1 went to the
police station and presented a report against Accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. PW-17-Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumantra Police Station,
received Ex.P-1 from PW-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.5 of 2011
under Sections 302 and 304-B read with 34 IPC. He issued copies of
FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-16 is the copy of FIR. On receipt of
the information from PW-17, the SDPO-PW-18 rushed to the police
station and thereafter he went to the scene of offence. He prepared
rough sketch at the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P-17.
In the meanwhile, PW-17 issued a requisition to PW-16 to conduct
inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, PW-16-
Tahsildar, Penumantra conducted inquest over the dead body in the
presence of PWs-17 and 18. PW-15-Sarpanch scribed the inquest
report. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P-14. PW-18 seized M.Os.1
and 2 at the scene of offence. After completion of inquest, he sent
the dead body for Post-Mortem examination to Government Hospital,
Tanuku. PW-13-Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the
dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to "consumption
of insecticide poison in phorate an insecticide poisonous substance".
He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-12. On 01.02.2011, PW-18
arrested all the three accused in the presence of PW-14. After
completion of investigation and after receipt of FSL Report-Ex.P11,
PW-18 filed charge sheet.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18
and marked Exs.P-1 to 17 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 2.
7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
they denied the incriminating material found against them.
8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the three Accused as
aforesaid.
9. Sri I.V.N. Raju, learned counsel for the appellants states that
during pendency of the Appeal, Accused No.3 was released by
granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.142 Home (Paroles & HRC)
Department, dated 26.11.2020. As such, no orders need be passed
in so far as Accused No.3 is concerned and he confines his
arguments only with regard to Accused Nos.1 and 2.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that
the conviction under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 304-B
IPC cannot go together and convicting the accused under both the
provisions is illegal. He further argued that so far as the offence
under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has not at all
placed any material either through direct witness or circumstantial
witness to substantiate the same. He further contends that so far as
the offence under Section 304-B IPC is concerned, the prosecution
has not placed any evidence to show that there is an agreement
between the accused and PW-1 with regard to payment of dowry in
connection with the marriage and as such, question of demanding
additional dowry does not arise. In support of his contention, he
relied on the Judgment in Ayyala Rambabu Vs State of Andhra
Pradesh 1 . As there is no agreement for demand of dowry in
connection with the marriage, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
ought not to have convicted the accused under Section 304-B read
with 34 IPC. As such, he requested this Court to allow the Appeal by
setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
11. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned
Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed stating that there
was demand for an additional dowry soon before the death of the
deceased and as such, the offence under Section 304-B IPC is
made out. He further contends that the evidence of PWs-1 to 6
clinchingly established that the accused demanded additional dowry
of Rs.50,000/- and motor bike from the deceased. As PW-1 did not
fulfil the demand of the accused, they used to harass the deceased.
He further contended that the evidence of PW-1 to 6 is also
consistent with regard to the payment of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- at
the time of marriage of the deceased with Accused No.1 apart from
1993 (1) ALT (CRI.) 73 (D.B)
giving one gold ring. He further contends that the deceased died
within eight (08) months from the date of her marriage. Though the
accused pleaded that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain
and she also underwent a surgery, they did not file any medical
record to show that she underwent surgery. As such, he sought for
dismissal of the present Criminal Appeal by confirming the conviction
and sentence under Section 304-B IPC. To support his contention,
he also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Jogendra and Another 2. So far as
the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is concerned, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submits that conviction
under Section 302 as well as 304-B IPC cannot go together.
12. We have gone through the entire material on record.
13. Though the charge was framed under Section 302 read with
34 IPC alternatively under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under
Section 302 read with 34 IPC as well as 304-B read with 34 IPC
which, in the considered view of this Court, is improper.
Consequently, we are setting aside the conviction under Section 302
read with 34 IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(2022) 5 SCC 401
14. Coming to the offence under Section 304-B IPC, we have
gone through the evidence of PWs-1 to 6. All the six witnesses in
their evidence have categorically stated that at time of marriage, on
demand being made by Accused No.1, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
paid to him towards dowry apart from parting a gold ring.
PWs-1 to 6 in their evidence consistently stated that Accused No.1
used to harass the deceased, demanding her to bring additional
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and motor bike from her parents. Further, the
deceased died within eight (08) months from the date her marriage.
Though the defence came up with a version that the deceased
committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain, they did not
place any material to show that she is suffering from stomach pain.
Though the neighbours-PWs-7 and 9 to 11 did not support the
prosecution case the evidence of PWs-1 to 6 is consistent with
regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/- along with motor bike. Further
the evidence brought on record amply demonstrates that the
harassment of the deceased for an additional dowry had
commenced immediately after the marriage. This fact is borne out
from the deposition of PW-1 itself. As such, the prosecution is able
to prove the offence under Section 304-B IPC against Accused No.1
alone. So far as Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, there is no
positive evidence to the effect that they also used to harass the
deceased.
15. In view of the above analysis, we are inclined to confirm the
conviction against Accused No.1 under Section 304-B IPC instead of
304-B read with 34 IPC. So far as Accused No.2 is concerned, there
is no positive evidence against him to the effect that he also used to
demand the deceased for additional dowry.
16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The
conviction and sentence imposed against Accused No.2 is hereby
set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to him. As Accused
No.2 was already released on bail by this Court, by order, dated
01.12.2021, he is directed to surrender before the Superintendent,
Central Prison, Rajahmundry and complete the formalities as per the
guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The
State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in
Crl.A.No.607 of 2011).
17. So far as Accused No.1 is concerned, the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge
under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is hereby set aside and fine
amount, if any, paid under Section 302 IPC, shall be refunded to
him. However, Accused No.1 is convicted under Section 304-B IPC
and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of seven (07)
years while maintaining the fine amount and default sentence. Since
the Accused No.1 was also enlarged on bail by this Court, by order,
dated 01.12.2021, he is directed to surrender before the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, forthwith. The period
already undergone by Accused No.1 shall be given set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
______________________________
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Date: 26.06.2024
RSI/TSNR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Date: 26.06.2024
RSI/TSNR
