Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P.,Rep.By Its ... vs Rangu Sathyanarayana, on 12 February, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

                   HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 425 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (3) and (1)

Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment, dated 13.02.2009

passed in S.C.No.492 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the accused were acquitted

for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed in S.C.

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Rangu

Latha @ Shailaja (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who

is the daughter of P.W.1, was performed with A-1 in the month of

March, 2000. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 presented dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/-, 4 ½ tolas of gold, 14 tolas of silver and other

household conventional articles. The deceased joined A-1 and

they lived happily for about three months and thereafter, A-1 on

the instigation of A-2, who is the mother of A-1, started harassing

the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.80,000/- during her

first pregnancy and unable to bear the harassment of both the

accused, she consumed poison to commit suicide, but fortunately

she had survived. In this regard, a panchayat was conducted by

P.Ws.9 and 10 and they advised both the parties to have peaceful

living but the accused did not change their attitude and continued

to harass the deceased mentally and physically just one week prior

to her death. On such harassment, the deceased brought

Rs.10,000/- from her parents and similarly now and then P.W.1

paid a total sum of Rs.60,000/- in different instalments to the

accused as additional dowry. Not being satisfied with the same,

the accused were harassing the deceased and subjected her to

cruelty both mentally and physically. On 29.12.2006, both the

accused harassed the deceased for dowry and the harassment was

so severe, she was unable to bear with it and ultimately, the

deceased jumped into an agricultural well belonging to P.W.12 and

died. Basing on these allegations a charge sheet came to be filed

before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapally, who

inturn committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section

209 of Cr.P.C., wherein it came to be numbered as S.C.No.492 of

2007.

On appearance of the accused, the material was perused and

on being satisfied, charges under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were framed, read

over and explained to the accused in telugu, to which they pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15

and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 3. After closure of the

prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

explaining the incriminating material available on record, but the

same was denied by the accused. Neither oral nor documentary

evidence was produced on behalf of the accused.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the trial

Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same the present

appeal is filed by the State.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

appellant-State contended that the judgment of the trial Court is

against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and

that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in proper

perspective.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused

would submit that the Prosecution miserably failed to establish

that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on the crucial day or at

any time immediately before the occurrence and there is

absolutely no acceptable evidence to show that any of the accused

herein made a demand of dowry soon before the death of the

deceased and as such the prosecution failed to establish the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the accused

were rightly acquitted by the trial Court.

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is

whether the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is

sustainable in law?

In case of appeal against acquittal the scope of appeal is

circumscribed by limitation. Unless the approach of lower Court to

the consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or

conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no

interference with the order of acquittal is permissible.

P.W.1 is the father and PW.2 is the brother of the deceased.

P.W.3 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem

examination. P.Ws.4 to 8 are the circumstantial witnesses, PWs.9

and 10 are the elders, who conducted panchayat, P.W.11 is the

panch witnesses for conducting witnesses, P.W.12 is the person, in

whose well the deceased fell and died, P.W.13 is the Mandal

Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the

deceased and P.Ws.14 and 15 are the Investigating Officers.

P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that the deceased

and A-1 lived happily for three months and thereafter both the

accused harassed her demanding additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-.

PWs.4 to 8, who are the neighbours of the accused, did not support

the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile.

P.W.12, who is the owner of the well in which the dead body of

the deceased was found, stated that he does not know the reason

why the deceased committed suicide. There remains the evidence

of P.Ws.1, 2, 9 and 10 for consideration as to whether the accused

demanded dowry and harassed the deceased for extracting it.

With regard to the demand of dowry just prior to the death

of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that

three months after the marriage, there were quarrels between

P.W.1 and the accused on account of the accused harassing the

deceased for dowry, but PWs.9 and 10, who conducted panchayat

on the complaint made by P.W.1, deposed that the alleged

harassment was made five years prior to the death of the

deceased. That apart, the oral statements made to P.Ws.1, 2, 9

and 10 not only gave two conflicting versions, but also in consistent

with each other.

The ingredients necessary for the application of Section 304-

B IPC are :

1. that the death of a woman has been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances,

2. that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage and,

3. that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.

In Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and others Vs. State

of WB1 the Apex Court held that the deficiency in evidence

regarding any cruelty or harassment in connection with the

demand of dowry would prove fatal for the case of the Prosecution

and that apart, mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not

sufficient to bring in application of Section 304-B of IPC and in

addition, it has to be shown that such cruelty or harassment was in

connection with the demand for dowry.

(2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 172

In Kamesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar2 the Apex Court held

that "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. But, however, the

Honourable Supreme Court indicated in the decision stated supra

that 'soon before' would normally imply that the interval should not

be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the

death in question." The Apex Court further held as under:-

"15. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of 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 Evidence Act. The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive Section 304-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

(2005) 12 SCC 72

defined. A reference to expression 'soon before' used in Section 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act 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 effects 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.

16. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498-A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498-A. Substantive Section 498-A IPC and presumptive Section 113- A of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. It is to be noted that Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of 'cruelty'. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of 'cruelty'. But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruelty' or 'harassment' is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which

'cruelty' by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304- B it is 'dowry death' that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A. If the case is established there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR-1991-SC-1142]. Period of operation of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage."

Therefore, in view of the above said settled principle of law

laid down by the Apex Court in respect of the case under Section

304-B of IPC, the prosecution is bound to prove the existence of a

proximate and live-link between the effects of cruelty based on

dowry demand and the concerned death. On a close scrutiny of the

testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 9 and 10, it does not spell out any

circumstances to show that there was any cruelty or harassment in

connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of the

deceased. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no

material available on record to the effect that soon before her

heath, the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment, which

drove her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life.