Chella Krishna, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4097 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrieved

by the conviction recorded by the VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet, in S.C.No.396 of 2007 dated

13.03.2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-;

under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine

of Rs.2,000/-; under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two

years and to pay a fine of Rs.500; under Section 304(B) of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-.

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

married to the daughter of PWs.2 and 3. PW1 is the brother of

the deceased. According to the case as stated by PWs.1 to 3 is

that at the time marriage of the deceased with the appellant an

amount of Rs.50,000/-, 3 or 4 Tulas of gold and Rs.15,000/-

worth household articles were given. After marriage, the

deceased and the appellant lived amicably for a period of six

months and thereafter the appellant and his parents (A2 was

acquitted and A3 died before pronouncement of the Judgment)

demanded for additional dowry. The deceased was beaten by the

appellant for which reason she went to the house of her parents.

PWs.1 to 3 requested the appellant to treat the deceased

properly. For the reason of the appellant refusing to live with the

deceased, the elders from both sides decided that the deceased

and the appellant would take divorce and the appellant would

refund an amount of Rs.13,000/-. It was also decided by the

elders that gold should also be returned. However, the appellant

returned the household articles and also paid Rs.13,000/- as

decided by the 'panchayath' elders. When asked to return the

gold given, the appellant stated that they were not in a position

to return the gold, however, requested that the deceased should

be sent back and would be treated properly in their house.

Accordingly, the appellant and his parents went to her house to

take back the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was looked

after properly for a period of two months and again the deceased

came back and PW2 paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- and also

stated that another Rs.8,000/- would be given at a later date.

However, the harassment continued for which reason the

deceased came back to the house of PWs.1 to 3. One month prior

to the incident, the deceased returned and was staying in the

house of PWs.1 to 3 and on 10.07.2007, the deceased poured

Kerosene on herself and lit fire, for which reason of receiving

burns, she was taken to the hospital, however, during treatment

she expired on 16.07.2007.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the case of

prosecution sounds improbable. The deceased committed suicide

in her parents' house and admittedly there was an

understanding that the deceased and the appellant would be

separated. Having accepted the decision of the elders to live

separately, and having received the dowry amount as directed by

the village elders, the question of the deceased again living with

the appellant does not arise. Since there was a customary

divorce at the instance of the village elders she was living with

PWs.1 to 3 and in such circumstances it cannot be held that the

deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment of

the appellant and his parents.

4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the allegation of harassment is consistent and as seen from the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the other independent witnesses,

dowry was given and though it was decided to live separately, on

their own volition, the deceased and Appellant started living

together and for the reason of the persistent demand of

additional dowry, the deceased unable to bear the harassment

and committed suicide in their parents' house. For the said

reasons the conviction recorded by the leaned Sessions Judge

needs no interference.

5. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, though dowry was

given at the time of marriage, due to the incompatibility and

consistent quarreling amongst each other, it was decided by the

village elders that divorce should be taken by the appellant and

the deceased. Pursuant to such understanding and the decision

of the elders, household articles and an amount of Rs.13,000/-

were also returned by the appellant to her parents. Subsequent

to such decision, the appellant and the deceased living together

was mutual and there were no conditions or demands that were

made for the deceased and the appellant to live together, which

is apparent from the evidence of the witnesses.

6. In view of the understanding which was arrived at between

the spouses, 13,000/- amount and household articles were also

returned to PWs.1 to 3. Except stating that there was

harassment by the appellant and his parents, no specific

instances were given by the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 3.

However, the witnesses state that the appellant was constantly

asking for additional dowry from the deceased. The complaint

which was given by the PW1 also shows that the deceased was

staying with the parents one month prior to her death. During

such stay of the deceased, it is not the case of PWs.1 to 3 that

the appellant or his parents have in any manner harassed or

demanded any amount from the deceased or her parents PWs.2

and 3.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra1, held as follows:

(2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401

"9. The most fundamental constituent for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the woman must be a dowry death. The ingredients for making out an offence under Section 304-B have been reiterated in several rulings of this Court. Four prerequisites for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B are as follows:

(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance;

(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage;

(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and

(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry."

8. The evidence on record does not reflect any harassment

during the stay of the petitioner at her parents' house, as such it

can be inferred that there was no harassment soon before her

death, for which reason the conviction under Section 304-B of

IPC is set aside.

9. However, it is evident from the evidence that dowry was

given and at the instance of panchayat elders some part of the

dowry was also returned. The said panchayat held in the

presence of elders was subsequent to the differences that arose

in between the deceased and the appellant. The reasons given by

PWs.1 to 3 are that the deceased was subjected to harassment

for the purpose of additional dowry. In view of the aforesaid facts

and circumstances the appellant's conviction under Section 498-

A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are maintained.

10. However, since the offence alleged had taken place in the

year 2007 and 15 years have elapsed since the incident took

place, and also for the reason of this Court finding that no

offence is made out under Section 304-B, it is appropriate to

sentence the appellant to the period already undergone.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.08.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.429 of 2009

Dated:10.08.2022

tk