Chopde Vishal, Nizamabad vs P.P., Hyd
2022 Latest Caselaw 6809 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1093 of 2014

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi)

      This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the

appellant/A1, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 13.10.2014,

passed in S.C.No.313 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant/A1

of the offence under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.


2.    We have heard the submissions of Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar

Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri P.Sriharinath,

learned counsel for the appellant/A1, Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused

the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

PW1-Surukutla Padma and PW2-Surukutla Shankar are

mother and father respectively of Shreya Rani (the deceased) and

residents of Rajeevnagar Colony, Dubba. The appellant/A1 and

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

the deceased fell in love and got married at Hyderabad on

06.05.2011. It was an inter-caste marriage. Accused Nos.2 and 3

are the parents of the appellant/A1. The appellant/A1 and the

deceased lived happily for six months along with A2 and A3 at

Thula Complex, Dubba, Nizamabad. Thereafter, the appellant/A1,

upon the instigation of accused Nos.2 and 3, asked the deceased

to bring additional dowry amount from her parents. Therefore, the

parents of the deceased gave Rs.1,50,000/- on different occasions

and also purchased a motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- on the

demand made by appellant/A1. Dissatisfied with the same,

accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- more and harassed

the deceased. About ten days prior to the subject incident,

appellant/A1 beat the deceased when she failed to bring

Rs.1,00,000/- and sent her to her parents' house. On 23.12.2012,

appellant/A1 went to the house of the parents of the deceased and

abused her in filthy language and warned that if she fails to give

the amount demanded, he would not take her back to his house.

Later, A3 came to the house of the parents' of the deceased and

took the deceased back to her marital house. A1 to A3 continued

their harassment against the deceased due to which, the

deceased, vexed with her life, consumed poison on the intervening

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

night of 25/26.12.2012. A3 and the appellant/A1 brought the

deceased to the house of PWs.1 and 2 and told them that the

deceased was suffering from stomach ache and therefore, PW.1

and PW.2 took the deceased to Government Hospital, Nizamabad.

While the deceased was being shifted to Shivasai Hospital, she

took her last breath and died.

4. On 26.12.2012 at 11.00 hours, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 report

with Police, III Town Nizamabad. Basing on the said report, PW.8-

Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.314 of 2012

for the offence under Section 304B IPC and issued FIR under

Ex.P10 and gave requisition to Tahsildar for conducting inquest

over the dead body of the deceased. Since it is a case of death,

PW.9-SDPO, Nizamabad, took up investigation of the case. PW.9

visited the scene of offence and got photographed the dead body

of deceased. In the meantime, PW6-Tahsildhar, Nizamabad,

visited the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and examined blood

relatives of the deceased. He also held inquest over the dead body

of deceased in the presence of PW.5, LW.11-Neeradi Rajeshwar

and LW.12-Paleti Laxmi. PW.7-doctor and LW.15-Dr.Shailaja,

conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

deceased and preserved viscera for transmission to Forensic

Science Laboratory.

5. On 10.01.2013 at 11.00 hours, the appellant/A1 was

arrested and produced before the Court for judicial remand. A2

and A3 obtained anticipatory bail. PW.7 and LW.15-Dr.Shailaja

gave their final opinion after receipt of FSL report, mentioning that

the cause of death of the deceased is due to 'ingestion of organo

phosphorous poison'. After completion of investigation, PW.9 filed

charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned against the A1 to A3

for the offence under Section 304B IPC.

6. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the

appellant/A1 and A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 304B of

IPC, registered the same as P.R.C.No.24 of 2013 and committed

the same to the Court of Session, Nizamabad, since the subject

case is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. On committal,

the Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad registered the case as

S.C.No.313 of 2013 and proceeded with the case.

7. On appearance of the A1 to A3, the Court below framed

charge against them of the offence under Section 304B of IPC,

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

read over and explained the same to them for which, they pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To prove the guilt of A1 to A3, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. PW1-Smt. Surukutla

Padma is the complainant/mother of the deceased. PW2-

Surukutla Shankar is the father of the deceased. PW3-Karipe

Ganesh is the neighbor of the accused. PW4-Bejjaram Rajesh is

the owner of the house, where the appellant/A1 and the deceased

were residing as tenants. PW5-Konduri Chinnaiah is a panch

witness for Ex.P6-inquest panchanama. PW6-Gunnala Rajender is

Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the

deceased. PW7-Dr.Rakesh is the doctor who conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P7-PME report.

PW8-G.Gopi is the SI of Police who received Ex.P1 complaint and

registered a case in Crime No.314 of 2012 against A1 to A3 under

Section 304B IPC and issued Ex.P10-FIR. PW9-J.Rama Mohan Rao

is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is marriage

photo of appellant/A1 and the deceased. Ex.P3 is the photo of

house of PW.1 and PW.2. Ex.P4 is (3) photos of the deceased.

Ex.P5 is portion of statement of PW.3 recorded under Section 161

of Cr.P.C. Ex.P6 is Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P7 is PME report.

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

Ex.P8 is FSL report. Ex.P9 is final opinion. Ex.P10 is FIR. Ex.P11 is

Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex.P12 is attested copy of

Marriage Certificate.

9. When the appellants/A1 and A2 and A3 were confronted with

the incriminating material appearing against them and were

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the allegations

and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the accused, the

appellant/A1 was examined as DW.1 and Ex.D1-relevant portion of

statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and

Ex.D2-relevant portion of PW.4 recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. were marked.

10. The Court below, having considered the submissions made

and the evidence available on record, vide the impugned

judgment, dated 13.10.2014, while acquitting A2 and A3 of the

offence under Section 304B IPC, convicted the appellant/A1 of the

offence under Section 304B IPC and sentenced him as stated

supra. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/A1 has preferred this

appeal.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 would

contend that the findings recorded and the conclusions reached by

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

the Court below are erroneous, incorrect and against the material

evidence on record. The essential ingredients of Section 304B of

IPC are not made out against the appellant/A1. There is no iota of

evidence on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by the appellant/A1 soon before her death

in connection with demand for dowry. The evidence adduced by

the prosecution against the appellant/A1 is vague. There are

several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, which is unsafe to act upon. The Court below, while

rightly acquitting A2 and A3 of the offence under Section 304B

IPC, erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant/A1 for the

said offence. The evidence on record shows that though the

deceased took divorce from one Ravinder, said Ravinder was

continuously pestering the deceased to join his company. Vexed

with the said problem, the deceased took an extreme step of

putting an end to her life by consuming poison. The evidence of

the appellant/A1 recorded by the Court under Section 315 of

Cr.P.C. is consistent, believable and nothing is brought on record

to disbelieve the same and as such, the Court below ought to have

taken the same into consideration and acquitted the appellant/A1.

Even otherwise, PW.3 clearly stated in his cross-examination that

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

the deceased was suffering with stomach pain due to which, she

consumed poison and put an end to her life. The evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 in relation to harassing the deceased demanding

dowry did not find any corroboration. PWs.1 and 2, being the

parents of the deceased, are highly interested witnesses and

hence, it is unsafe to act upon their testimony. Prior to the death

of the deceased, no panchayaths were held with regard to the

alleged demand of dowry or payment of amount. The findings of

the Court below are based on assumptions and presumptions. It is

not a case of dowry death. There is no cogent and convincing

evidence on record to convict the appellant/A1 of the offence

under Section 304B IPC. The prosecution miserably failed to prove

the guilt of the appellant/A1 beyond all reasonable doubt of the

said offence and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting

aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the

appellant/A1. Learned senior counsel also contended that the

Court below is not justified in imposing the maximum punishment

of imprisonment for life against the appellant/A1 for the offence

under Section 304B of IPC, which is against the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court which is to the effect that extreme

punishment of imprisonment of life should be awarded to an

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

accused of an offence under Section 304B of IPC in rare cases but

not in every case.

12. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that

the deceased is the wife of the appellant/A1. The deceased was

harassed demanding dowry by A1 to A3 and due to the

harassment meted out to her, she consumed insecticide poison on

the intervening night of 25/26.12.2012 and died at 07:00 AM on

26.12.2012. There is evidence of PW.7-doctor and PW.5-panch

witness with regard to the same. The investigation conducted by

PW.8-SI of Police and PW.9-Investigating Officer reveal that the

death of the deceased was unnatural and soon before her death,

she was physically and mentally tortured by A1 to A3 demanding

dowry. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record

clinchingly prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and

harassment in connection with demand for dowry. All the

ingredients of Section 304B IPC are made out against the

appellant/A1. The prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant/A1

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304B of

IPC. The Court below is justified in convicting the appellant/A1 of

the offence under Section 304B IPC. The Court below is also

justified in imposing life imprisonment against the appellant/A1

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

holding that the appellant/A1 deserves no leniency. There are no

circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment of the

Court below and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by

confirming the judgment under challenge.

13. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the

points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:-

1) Whether the death of the deceased-Shreya Rani is unnatural?

2) Whether the death of the deceased-Shreya Rani was caused due to the harassment and cruelty caused by the appellant/A1 in connection with demand for dowry, to attract the ingredients of Section 304B IPC?

3) Whether the Court below is justified in sentencing the appellant/A1 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B IPC?

4) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/A1 of the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC vide impugned judgment, dated 13.10.2014 passed in S.C.No.313 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, is liable to be set aside?

5) To what result?

POINTS:-

14. There is evidence of PW7-Doctor coupled with Ex.P7-PME

report and Ex.P8-FSL report to prove that the subject death of the

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

deceased was unnatural and was caused on the intervening night

of 25/26.12.2012. PW7-Doctor deposed in his evidence that the

cause of the death was due to ingestion of organo phospherous

poison. The same is mentioned in the Ex.P9-Final Opinion also.

There is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of PW7-

Doctor and Ex.P9-Final Opinion. Further, Ex.P7-PME Report,

Ex.P8-FSL Report and Ex.P9-Final Opinion given by LW.15-

Dr.M.Shailaja reveal that the deceased died due to ingestion of

organo phosphorous poison. PW.7-doctor, in his cross-

examination, stated about collection of viscera and mentioned the

same in Ex.P7-PME report issued by him. Nothing was elicited in

the cross examination of PW7-Doctor to discredit his testimony in

his examination-in-chief. PW7-Doctor is a truthful witness and

Exṣ.P7 to P9 are genuine documents and can be relied upon. In

the view of the same, it can be safely concluded the death of the

deceased is not natural and she died due to ingestion of Organo

Phosphorous poison.

15. Now the point that requires answer is as to whether the

death of the deceased was caused due to the cruelty or

harassment by the appellant/A1 in connection with demand for

dowry, so as to attract the ingredients of Section 304B IPC. To

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

answer the said question, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence

on record.

16. PW.1/mother of the deceased deposed that the marriage of

the deceased with the appellant/A1 took place on 06.05.2011 and

she lived happily with the appellant/A1 for six months at

Hyderabad. Thereafter, the deceased and the appellant/A1 came

to Nizamabad and they started visiting their house. Then the

appellant/A1 started demanding PW.1 to get some loan for him.

She procured Rs.50,000/- loan in favour of the appellant/A1 from

one M.Vijaya, her neighbour. A3 also requested to procure loan of

Rs.20,000/- upon which, she arranged loan of Rs.20,000/- in

favour of A3 from Mahila Group. Now and then, the deceased

used to come to their house and state to her that the appellant/A1

was not working and that room rent had become due. Now and

then, PW.1 gave Rs.5,000/- and 10,000/- to her daughter. Four

months prior to the death of her daughter, the appellant/A1

demanded Rs.50,000/- from PW.1 to purchase motorcycle. So,

PW.1 arranged Rs.50,000/- to purchase a motorcycle. Thereafter,

the appellant/A1 and the deceased joined A2 and A3 and started

living with them at Thula Complex in Dubba locality of Nizamabad

Town. For two months, the deceased lived happily there.

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

Thereafter, the appellant/A1 beat her daughter (deceased) stating

that she did not get any dowry and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and

sent her daughter to their house. The appellant/A1 done all this

at the instance of A2 and A3. The said incident occurred 15 days

prior to the death of the deceased. Since PW.1 did not have

money, she wanted to return her daughter to her in-laws place

after procuring some amount. After five or ten days, the

appellant/A1 came to their house and asked whether

Rs.1,00,000/- was ready or not. PW.1 said that she could not pay

the amount and further stated that she would send her daughter

when the said amount is ready. On that day, in her presence and

in the presence of her husband (PW.2) and other persons, the

appellant/A1 beat her daughter (the deceased) and left to his

house and after one hour, A3 came to their house and stated that

the deceased has to stay with them and took the deceased with

him. On 25.12.2012, A1 to A3 brought her daughter to her house

in an auto and told that her daughter was suffering from stomach

pain. Thereafter, they took her daughter to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad. The deceased was not talking and she was semi-

conscious. After admitting her daughter in hospital, A3 left to his

house. As the condition of her daughter became serious in the

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

morning, they took her to Shivasai Hospital, Nizamabad for

treatment. The doctor of Shivasai Hospital came near the auto

and after examining the deceased, he pronounced her dead at

07.00 AM on 26.12.2012. Thereafter, A1 to A3 brought her

daughter to their house and absconded. Thereafter, she went to

police station and lodged report against the A1 to A3. She was

examined by the police. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by her. Ex.P1-

report corroborates the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 was cross-

examined at length, wherein nothing was elicited to discredit her

testimony in examination-in-chief.

17. PW2 is the father of the deceased. His evidence

corroborates the evidence of PW.1 on all material particulars. He

deposed that the deceased died by consuming poison due to

harassment meted out to her by the A1 to A3; that the deceased

used to inform him that the appellant/A1 used to harass her for

money; they paid Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- now

and then to the appellant/A1; that one week prior to the death of

his daughter, the appellant/A1 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and

harassed his daughter for the said amount; that ten days prior to

the death of his daughter, the appellant/A1 left the deceased at

their house; that on that day, the appellant/A1 beat the deceased

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

in their presence and asked whether Rs.1,00,000/- was ready or

not; that thereafter, his daughter was taken to her in-laws house;

that after ten days of the said incident, his daughter consumed

poison at the house of A1 to A3 situated at Dubba locality of

Nizamabad town; that on the night of 25.12.2012, A1 to A3

brought his daughter to their house by auto and informed them

that his daughter was suffering from stomach pain; that he along

with his wife (PW.1) and the appellant/A1 to A3 reached

Government Hospital, Nizamabad and admitted their daughter

there; that since there was no good treatment there, A3 advised

them to take their daughter to other hospital; that on the next

day morning, they took the deceased to a private hospital where,

the doctor pronounced her dead; that after the death of the

deceased, A1 to A3 brought dead body of his daughter to their

house and absconded. PW.2 specifically stated that his daughter

died due to harassment meted out to her at the hands of A1 to A3

in connection of demand of dowry on many occasions. Though

PW.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to

discard his testimony in his examination-in-chief.

18. PW.3 is the neighbour of A1 to A3. Before he was declared

as hostile, he deposed that he knew A1. A1 was married to a girl.

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

It was a love marriage, which took place two year two months

back. The wife of A1 is no more and she committed suicide. He

does not know why she committed suicide. Ten days prior to

death of wife of A1, A1 and his wife joined A2 and A3 at their

house situated at Dubba locality. About one and half year back,

when he was returning to his house at about 11.30 PM or 12:00 in

the mid night, he found A2 standing outside of her house and

crying and waiting for an auto. When he asked, A2 informed that

wife of the appellant/A1 was suffering from stomach pain and they

were taking her to hospital. Then he left to his house. On the

next day morning, he came to know that wife of the appellant/A1

died by consuming poison. After declaring hostile, PW.3 was

cross-examined, wherein, he denied that he made statement to

police as mentioned in Ex.P5 i.e., A1 and his parents repeatedly

demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased.

19. PW.4 is the owner of house where the appellant/A1 and the

deceased resided as tenants. He deposed about letting the room

to the appellant/A1. He further deposed that he came to know

that the deceased committed suicide. The evidence of this

witness only reveals that A1 and the deceased resided in a rented

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

room for some time and they vacated the room and joined A2 and

A3.

20. Here it is relevant to extract Section 304B IPC which reads

as follows:

304B. Dowry Death -

1) Where the death of a woman caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years or her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death". Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extent to imprisonment of life.

21. In order to convict an accused for offence under Section

304B of IPC, the essential requirements that must be satisfied are

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or

bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii)

such death must have occurred within seven years of her

marriage; (iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relatives of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment be

for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

22. When the above ingredients are established by reliable and

acceptable evidence, such death shall be termed as dowry death

and the husband or his relatives shall be deemed to have caused

her death. Further, if the aforementioned ingredients attracts, the

Court shall presume and it shall record such fact, until and unless

disproved. However, it is open to the accused to adduce such

evidence for disproving such compulsory presumption, as the

burden is unmistakably on him to do so and he can discharge such

burden by getting the testimony of prosecution witnesses

discredited in their cross-examination or by adducing cogent and

convincing evidence on his behalf.

23. Further, Section 113 of the Evidence Act speaks about

presumption as to dowry death, which reads as under:

113B. Presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

24. In the light of the above extracted provisions of law and the

essential requirements to establish the offence under Section 304B

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

of IPC, let us examine whether the appellant/A1 is guilty of the

offence under Section 304B of IPC. There is specific evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 that the appellant/A1 beat their daughter (the

deceased) in their presence demanding Rs.1,00,000/-. There is

also evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the appellant/A1 demanded

Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of motorcycle and they paid the

same. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 further discloses that the

appellant/A1 beat their daughter stating that they did not pay

adequate dowry. As per the evidence of PW1, the alleged demand

of dowry was made 15 days prior to the death of their daughter.

Even PW.2 deposed that the alleged demand of dowry was made

10 days before the death of their daughter. There is corroboration

and consistency in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. There is also

evidence on record to establish that the appellant/A1 beat the

deceased and also attempted to beat PW.1, when she intervened.

The other harassment with regard to demand of money and

payment is clearly narrated in Ex.P1 report. There is also specific

evidence of PW.1 that A3 came to their house and took the

deceased to their house stating that the deceased has to reside

with them. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant/A1 contended that the deceased died due to consistent

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

pestering by one Ravinder, there is no such evidence on record.

The evidence of the appellant/A1 who deposed as DW.1 is of no

help to him as he obviously tries to save himself. The

investigation conducted by PW.8-SI of Police and PW.9-

Investigating Officer reveal that the deceased was subjected to

physical and mental harassment in connection with demand for

dowry. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/A1 also

contended that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and

vexed with the same, she took poison and put an end to her life.

On this aspect, the Court below recorded a finding that had it been

true, there would be medical reports and prescriptions

substantiating that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain

and she took treatment. We are in agreement with the finding

recorded by the Court below on this aspect. There is also

evidence on record to believe that soon before her death, the

deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the

appellant/A1 to get Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Under these

circumstances, the Court below held that the appellant/A1

subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty in connection

with demand for dowry and accordingly convicted him of the

offence under Section 304B of IPC. The findings recorded by the

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

Court below in convicting the appellant/A1 under Section 304B IPC

are based on evidence on record. The Court below rightly

convicted the appellant/A1 of the offence under Section 304B IPC

and there are no circumstances to interfere the same.

25. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/A1

contended that PWs.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses and it

is not safe to act upon their testimony. It is relevant to note that

relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness.

Though the evidence of an interested/partisan witness has to be

weighed by the Court very carefully, but it would be unreasonable

to contend that the evidence given by a witness should be

discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of a

partisan/interested witness. In any event, mechanical rejection of

such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would

invariably lead to failure of justice. In the instant case, though

PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, they are natural

witnesses. In our opinion, there is no reason to discard the

evidence of the mother and father of the deceased, who are the

most natural and material witnesses to speak on such issues.

Indeed, in such circumstances, a married girl would always like to

first disclose her domestic problems to her mother and father and

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

then to her close relatives, because they have access to her and

are always helpful in solving her problems. We have not been

able to notice any kind of omissions and contradiction on any of

the material issues in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 despite they

being subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defense.

That apart, why should a mother and a father speak lie with

regard to marital life of their daughter unless there are justifiable

reasons behind it. We do not find any such reason in this case.

Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the evidence of PWs.1 and

2 can be acted upon.

26. Now the point requires answer is whether the Court below is

justified in sentencing the appellant/A1 to undergo imprisonment

for life for the offence under Section 304B IPC.

27. A plain reading of Section 304B IPC would show that when a

question arises whether a person has committed the offence of

dowry death of a woman, what all that is necessary is that it

should be shown that soon before her unnatural death which took

place within seven years of the marriage, the deceased had been

subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in

connection with demand of dowry. If that is shown, then the

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

Court shall presume that such person has caused the dowry death.

Similarly there is a presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence

Act as to dowry death. It can therefore be seen that irrespective of

the fact that whether the accused has any direct connection with

the death or not, he shall be presumed to have committed the

dowry death provided the other requirements mentioned in the

section are satisfied.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Hari Om Vs. State of

Harayana and Another1 while interpreting the expression "may"

occurring in Section 304B of IPC, held that it is not mandatory for

the Court in every case to award life imprisonment to the accused

once he is found guilty of the offence under Section 304B of IPC.

It was held that the Court could award sentence in exercise of its

discretion, between seven years to life imprisonment, depending

upon the facts of each case. It was further held that in no case, it

could be less than seven years and that extreme punishment of

life imprisonment should be awarded in "rare cases" but not in

every case.

(2014) 10 SCC 577

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

29. In Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi)2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

10. Are we to understand that the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain judge centric? The issue though predominantly dealt with in the context of cases involving the death penalty has tremendous significance to the Criminal Jurisprudence of the country inasmuch as in addition to the numerous offences under various special laws in force, hundreds of offences are enumerated in the Penal Code, punishment for which could extend from a single day to 10 years or even for life, a situation made possible by the use of the seemingly same expressions in different provisions of the Penal Code as noticed in the opening part of this order.

11. As noticed, the "net value" of the huge number of in depth exercises performed since Jagmohan Singh (supra) has been effectively and systematically culled out in Sangeet and Shankar Kisanrao Khade (supra). The identified principles could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimizing individualized and judge centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar and Others[37]. The difference is not in the identity of the principles; it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. While in India application of the principles is left to the judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorization of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) to be inappropriate to our system. The principles being clearly evolved and securely entrenched, perhaps, the answer lies in consistency in approach.

12. To revert to the main stream of the case, we see no reason as to why the principles of sentencing evolved by this Court over the years through largely in the context of the death penalty will not be applicable to all lesser sentences so long as the sentencing judge is vested with the discretion to award a lesser or a higher sentence resembling the swing of the pendulum from the minimum to the maximum. In fact, we are reminded of the age old infallible logic that what is good to one situation would hold to be equally good to another like situation. Beside paragraph 163 (underlined portion) of Bachan Singh (supra), reproduced earlier, bears testimony to the above fact.

(2014) 4 SCC 375

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

13. Would the above principles apply to sentencing of an accused found guilty of the offence under Section 304-B inasmuch as the said offence is held to be proved against the accused on basis of a legal presumption? This is the next question that has to be dealt with. So long there is credible evidence of cruelty occasioned by demand(s) for dowry, any unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage makes the husband or a relative of the husband of such woman liable for the offence of "dowry death" under Section 304-B though there may not be any direct involvement of the husband or such relative with the death in question. In a situation where commission of an offence is held to be proved by means of a legal presumption the circumstances surrounding the crime to determine the presence of aggravating circumstances (crime test) may not be readily forthcoming unlike a case where there is evidence of overt criminal acts establishing the direct involvement of the accused with the crime to enable the Court to come to specific conclusions with regard to the barbarous or depraved nature of the crime committed. The necessity to combat the menace of demand for dowry or to prevent atrocities on women and like social evils as well as the necessity to maintain the purity of social conscience cannot be determinative of the quantum of sentence inasmuch as the said parameters would be common to all offences under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. The above, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of acceptable jurisprudential principles to act as a rational basis for awarding varying degrees of punishment on a case to case basis. The search for principles to satisfy the crime test in an offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code must, therefore, lie elsewhere. Perhaps, the time spent between marriage and the death of the woman; the attitude and conduct of the accused towards the victim before her death; the extent to which the demand for dowry was persisted with and the manner and circumstances of commission of the cruelty would be a surer basis for determination of the crime test. Coupled with the above, the fact whether the accused was also charged with the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the basis of his acquittal of the said charge would be another very relevant circumstance. As against this the extenuating/mitigating circumstances which would determine the "criminal test" must be allowed to have a full play. The aforesaid two sets of circumstances being mutually irreconcilable cannot be arranged in the form of a balance sheet as observed in Sangeet (supra) but it is the cumulative effect of the two sets of different circumstances that has to be kept in mind while rendering the sentencing decision. This, according to us, would be the correct approach while dealing with the question of sentence so far as the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is concerned.

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

30. In Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana3, the Courts below

awarded life imprisonment to the accused therein for the offence

under Section 304B read with Section 498A of IPC, but the Hon'ble

Apex Court reduced it to 10 years of imprisonment. It was held as

follows:

"...the accused-appellant was a police employee and instead of checking the crime, he himself indulged therein and precipitated in it and that bride-killing cases are on the increase and therefore a serious view has to be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case".

31. Thus, while imposing punishment for an offence under

Section 304B of IPC, the Court would have to consider the

mitigating and aggravating circumstances before inflicting the

maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Moreover, the Court

should give reasons for inflicting the maximum sentence of life

imprisonment upon an accused while convicting him for the

offence under Section 304B IPC. The power and authority

conferred by use of different expressions used in different

provisions of the Penal Code including the expression

"imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years

(1994) 6 SCC 727

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

but which my extend to imprisonment for life" used in Section

304B of IPC indicate the enormous discretion vested in the Courts

in sentencing an offender who has been found guilty of

commission of any particular offence. Nowhere, either in the

penal code or in any other law in force, any prescription or norm

or even guidelines governing the exercise of the vast discretion in

the matter of sentencing, have been laid down. The sentencing

principles identified by the Hon'ble Apex Court could provide a

sound objective basis for sentencing, thereby minimizing

individualized and judge-centric approach. Thus, the principles of

sentencing evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court over the years,

though largely in the context of death penalty, will be applicable to

all lesser sentences, so long as the sentencing Judge is vested

with the discretion to award a lesser or higher sentence,

resembling the swing of a pendulum for minimum to maximum.

32. In the instant case, no doubt the prosecution has proved

that the deceased died an unnatural death and that the

appellant/A1 was responsible for the dowry death of the deceased,

but it failed to give reasons, much less cogent and convincing

reasons, for awarding the maximum punishment of life

imprisonment prescribed under Section 304B of IPC, which is

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

against the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the aforementioned decisions. While awarding life

imprisonment, the Court below simply observed that the

appellant/A1 deserves no leniency and that this type of case

should be dealt by imposing deterrent punishment. It appears to

us that the Court below has gone a bit far in awarding life

imprisonment to appellant/A1, which is unjustified. Moreover, it is

a fact that appellant/A1 is aged about 25 years as on the date of

the subject offence and that his mother was suffering from blood

pressure and the father with heart ailment. Furthermore, the

Court below acquitted A2 and A3 of the offence under Section

304B of IPC. Considering the evidence placed on record, the facts

and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decisions, we are of the

firm view that sentencing the appellant/A1 to undergo

imprisonment for seven years for the offence charged against him

i.e., Section 304B of IPC, would meet the ends of justice.

33. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction recorded

against the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 304B of

IPC, vide impugned judgment, dated 13.10.2014, passed in

S.C.No.313 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad,

AAR,J & JS,J Crl.A.No.1093 of 2014

the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed against the

appellant/A1 is reduced to imprisonment for a period of seven (7)

years, which shall include the period of imprisonment already

undergone by the appellant/A1.

34. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent

indicated above.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

15th December, 2022 KSK