Chethi Shankar, Ramagundam M, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4018 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1347 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 3

of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year, and to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months and also convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two

months, vide judgment in S.C.No.778 of 2008, dated

26.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Initially, A1 to A3 were tried for the offences under

Sections 498-A of IPC, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. However, the appellant was only convicted for

the offences as stated above and A2 and A3 were acquitted of

all the charges.

3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who is the

father of the deceased filed a complaint on 08.05.2008 stating

that the marriage of his daughter (deceased) was performed

with his nephew, who is the appellant herein and at the time

of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited in the Bank by way

of FDR and Rs.1,30,000/- was paid to the accused and

marriage was performed on 22.05.2003. For two years, the

couple led happy marital life. However, three years prior to

her death, the appellant herein and the acquitted accused (A2

and A3), who are in-laws of the deceased, were harassing the

deceased to get Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- as additional

dowry. Meanwhile, P.W.1 performed the marriage of his

second daughter in the month of February, 2008 by paying

Rs.3,40,000/- as dowry. Knowing that Rs.3,40,000/- was

paid, the appellant started to harass for additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/-. Due to the constant harassment, the deceased

committed suicide by consuming super vasmol hair dye on

08.05.2008.

4. P.W.1 is the father, P.W.8 is the mother, P.W.9 is the

brother of the deceased. They did not state anything about

the reason for the death of the deceased. The independent

witnesses P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution

case.

5. P.W.1 stated regarding the additional demand of

Rs.50,000/-. However, P.Ws.8 and 9 stated that at the time of

marriage, dowry was given. However all of them were not

aware of the reasons for the death of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the

witnesses except P.W.1 had turned hostile to the prosecution

case and all the witnesses other than the father of the

deceased P.W.1 stated nothing about harassment, for the said

reason, the conviction of the appellant has to be reversed.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits

that though the witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9, who are mother and

brother of the deceased respectively turned hostile to the

prosecution case but supported the factum of giving dowry at

the time of marriage, for which reason, the conviction recorded

by the learned Sessions Judge is proper.

8. On questioning, the learned Public Prosecutor submits

that no appeal is filed against acquittal of A2 and A3 nor any

appeal is filed questioning the acquittal of this appellant for

the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

9. The factum of giving dowry of Rs.1,30,000/- at the time

of marriage and also by way of FDR is not, in any manner

proved to be incorrect. In fact, the amounts were deposited

into the bank account.

10. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, it cannot be said

that the evidence of giving dowry is incorrect. During the

course of cross-examination also, the factum of giving and

taking dowry could not be disproved. In the said

circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be set aside. However, the case

is of the year 2008. The allegation is that the dowry was given

at the time of marriage, which took place in the year 2003.

Keeping in view the fact that there was no harassment and

none except P.W.1 stated about harassment that too on the

basis of the information provided by the deceased.

12. In the said circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment

both under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is

reduced to the period already undergone by the accused.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the trial Court in

S.C.No.778 of 2008 dated 26.10.2009 is modified.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall

stands closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1347 OF 2009

Date: 02.08.2022.

kvs