Kantham Gajanan, vs The State Ofa.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4017 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.698 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/sole accused

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional Sessions

Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.198 of 2008, dated 12.06.2009, for

the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The case of prosecution is that the appellant was married

to the deceased who is daughter of PWs.1 and 2. The love

marriage of the deceased and the appellant took place six years

prior to her death. The marriage was performed at a temple and

thereafter the deceased joined the accused at Adilabad and they

lived happily for one year. However, the accused started

harassing her for dowry stating that no dowry was given at the

time of marriage.

3. The demand was for an amount of Rs.50,000/- for

purchasing an Auto. The said demand was informed by the

deceased to PWs.1 and 2. On two occasions, the deceased went

to her parents house and on both occasions she informed that

the appellant was harassing for additional dowry. The deceased

fell from staircase and after treatment she was sent back to the

house of the accused. However, the said harassment continued.

On the date of incident, PW1 and PW2 were informed that the

accused beat her for which reason the deceased went and

committed suicide by jumping into the canal. The body of the

deceased was taken out from the water and PWs.1 and 2 found

and identified the dead body. Thereafter a complaint under

Ex.P1 was given stating that the appellant was harassing her for

dowry.

4. PW2 who is the father of the deceased also corroborated the

testimony of PW1 and stated that his daughter's marriage was

performed with accused as they fell in love, however, after

marriage the accused started harassing to pay an amount of

Rs.50,000/- for purchasing an Auto.

5. PW3 is a person from the locality who corroborated the

testimony of PW1 regarding marriage and also demand of dowry.

6. The other independent witnesses PWs.4, 5 and 6 turned

hostile to the prosecution case.

7. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charges for the

offence under Section 304-B of IPC for demanding Rs.50,000/-

as dowry, however, after conclusion of trial found that the

appellant is not guilty for the offence of 304-B of IPC but under

Section 498-A of IPC.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that apart from

the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 there is no other evidence to

corroborate the testimony of the alleged demand for dowry. Even

according to the witnesses, the appellant had married, having

fallen in love with the deceased. The question of demand after

marriage does not arise and it is highly improbable that having

married without any dowry, the appellant would demand

Rs.50,000/- after six years. In the said circumstances, the

prosecution has failed to prove any cruelty that was meted out

by the deceased. As such, the conviction under Section 498-A

has to be reversed.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1 and 2

cannot be called as interested witnesses for the reason, when

harassed by her husband a daughter would complain to the

parents. For the said reason the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 cannot

be brushed aside. Further there is independent corroboration

from the locality woman who also stated that the appellant was

harassing the deceased.

10. As seen from the evidence of witnesses though initially it

was a love marriage and the spouses lived amicably for two

years, there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of Auto.

The harassment continued over a period of time and it is the

specific case of PWs.1 and 2 that on three different occasions the

appellant had in fact sent the deceased to her parents house for

Rs 50,000/-. After pacifying her and also requesting the

appellant she was sent back.

11. In the said circumstances, the conduct of the appellant in

asking Rs.50,000/- for purchase of Auto continuously over a

period of time would amount to cruelty for which reason the

conviction recorded cannot be interfered with. However, the

incident took place in the year 2007 and it is '16' years since the

incident happened. The learned Sessions Judge had found that

there was no offence under Section 304-B of IPC and the

prosecution has not preferred any appeal against acquittal under

Section 304-B of IPC.

12. In the said circumstances, this court feels it appropriate to

reduce the imprisonment to the period already undergone.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.08.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.698 of 2009

Dated:02.08.2022

tk