Telangana High Court

Pasuladi Ramesh vs The State Of A.P. on 11 August, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

        HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          AT HYDERABAD
                                *****

                 Criminal Appeal No.02 OF 2009

Between:


Pasuladi Ramesh                           ... Appellant

                          And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep by its Public Prosecutor,
Hyderabad                                  ... Respondent


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.08.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1   Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to        Yes/No
     see the Judgments?

 2   Whether the copies of judgment
     may be marked to Law                Yes/No
     Reporters/Journals

 3   Whether Their
     Ladyship/Lordship wish to see       Yes/No
     the fair copy of the Judgment?
                                                  2




                     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


                                       + CRL.A. No. 2 of 2009


% Dated 11.08.2022



# Pasuladi Ramesh                                               ... Appellant



                                               And

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep by its Public Prosecutor,
Hyderabad                                                       ..Respondent




! Counsel for the Appellant: P.Prabhakar Reddy


^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor



>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401
                                     3


                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.02 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks for the offence

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused is further

convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two

years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC and the appellant is further convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of

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

months for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Aggrieved by

the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the

parents of the deceased Jyothi, who is the wife of the

appellant/accused. Both the deceased and the appellant eloped and

got married elsewhere in the month of December 2006. Three

months after the marriage, they returned to the village and started

living together in the house of the appellant.

3. P.W.1 and others did not oppose the marriage as they belong

to same community. However, the appellant started harassing the

deceased to get the dowry from P.W.1. According to P.W.1, he was

prepared to marry the deceased with another person namely

Yadagiri giving dowry of Rs.1,40,000/-. The appellant started

harassing the deceased to get Rs.1,40,000/- from P.W.1. He

started beating the deceased and ultimately on 09.06.2007 at 9.00

p.m, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on

fire.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the witnesses

P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents have exaggerated regarding their

alleged demand of dowry, which is not found in the complaint Ex.P1

which was lodged at the earliest point of time except stating vaguely

that there was demand for dowry. No specific instance or the

quantum of dowry was mentioned in the complaint. The crucial

evidence is the dying declaration recorded under Ex.P6 by the

Magistrate-P.W.9. In the said Dying Declaration, the deceased

stated that the appellant fought with the deceased and beat her.

The father of the appellant gave Rs.5,000/- to the appellant, the

appellant gave the said amount to his friend and failed to collect

interest. When the deceased questioned the appellant and for the

said reason, there was a quarrel and accordingly, she threatened

that she would pour kerosene on herself and though poured

kerosene on herself, the appellant did not pay attention. The

deceased further stated that when she stated that she was going to

lit herself, even then the appellant did not stop her and when she lit

herself, the neighbours came there and took her to the hospital.

5. Counsel submits that the Dying Declaration is totally

contradictory to what the witnesses stated regarding dowry. There

is no mention of any dowry in the Dying Declaration. Even

according to her declaration she committed suicide but her parents

stated that appellant burnt her. In the said circumstances, the

appellant is liable to be acquitted.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a

presumption that is raised under Section 113-B of the Indian

Evidence Act for the reason of the deceased dying of an unnatural

death within seven years of marriage, the appellant has failed to

discharge his burden and for the said reason, conviction under

Section 304-B of IPC cannot be set aside.

7. The alleged incident of the deceased setting herself on fire and

attempting suicide was on 09.06.2007 and the Dying Declaration

was recorded on 11.06.2007. The complaint, Ex.P1 was filed on

12.06.2007. The deceased died on 15.06.2007. The complaint

Ex.P1 was lodged after three days of the incident. In the said

complaint P.W.1 has not mentioned anything about the dowry that

was demanded by the appellant. It is stated in Ex.P1 complaint

that the deceased informed P.W.1 that the appellant was asking for

dowry and the parents-in-law and the brother of the appellant also

harassed her for dowry. For the said reason, she attempted suicide

on 09.06.2007. During the course of examination before the Court,

P.W.1 stated regarding Rs.1,40,000/- to be given to one Yadagiri

and it was the admission of the appellant that Rs.1,40,000/- was

demanded. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased stated that

Rs.1,00,000/- dowry was to be given to one Mallesham, who was to

marry the deceased and the Rs.30,000/- was taken from the house

before the deceased and the appellant eloped. PW.2 further stated

that Rs.5,00,000/- and five tulas was demanded by the appellant.

8. The entire story regarding the demand of dowry of

Rs.1,40,000/- or Rs.1,00,000/- or eloping with Rs.30,000/- were

all stated for the first time before the Court. Even during their

statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C before the police, no such

instances were narrated by any of these witnesses.

9. Admittedly, the deceased and the appellant eloped and got

married and lived at some places for a period of three months.

There was never any complaint regarding the elopement or

regarding the alleged harassment after they came back and started

living in the village. In Ex.P1 complaint, except stating that the

parents of the appellant and also his brother harassed for

additional dowry, there is no specific instance or the amount that

was asked by them. The police, after investigation found that the

parents and brother and appellant had nothing to do with the

alleged offence, for which they were not charge sheeted.

10. The narration by the deceased in her Dying Declaration Ex.P6

was that there was an altercation regarding the interest amount

that had to be paid by the friend of the appellant. For the reason of

the deceased demanding the appellant to get interest amount, there

was quarrel between them and for which reason, she threatened the

appellant that she would commit suicide and accordingly, poured

kerosene on herself and lit fire. There is no whisper of any kind of

harassment for additional dowry or that the appellant had asked

the deceased or her parents to bring any dowry. In the said

circumstances, when the complaint was lodged with delay of three

days, without narrating any instance of dowry demand and also

several improvements made during the course of their evidence

before the Court contradicting one another, such evidence regarding

demand for dowry cannot be believed. Further the deceased

appears to be too sensitive to normal issues and reacted abnormally

to the situation of the appellant not getting interest from his friend

for the money loaned by appellant, taking money from his father.

11. 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: