Telangana High Court

Malve Nagaraju, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 12 July, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1069 of 2008


JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants were charged for the offence under

Section 304-B of IPC, however, found guilty for the offences

under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and convicted and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two

years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer

simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide

judgment dated 18.08.2008 in S.C.No.51 of 2006 passed by

the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional

District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the

learned Sessions Judge'). Aggrieved by the same, present

appeal is filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 is the elder

brother of the deceased, who filed complaint stating that his

deceased sister was married to the 1st appellant/A1 on

17.05.2002. At the time of marriage, Rs.65,000/- cash and

Rs.10,000/- worth house hold articles were given. An amount

of Rs.1,00,000/- was also spent on the marriage. Six months

after the marriage, the appellants herein and father of A1

started demanding additional dowry, for which, P.W.3, father,

gave an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the appellants/A1 and A2.

In the year 2004, in the month of December, the deceased

gave birth to a male child and after five months of the birth of

the child, the deceased went to the house of the appellants on

10.04.2005. The tonsure ceremony was celebrated at

Vemulawada temple. On 07.05.2005, P.W.1's neighbor who

was examined as P.W.6 called and informed that the deceased

was harassed and asked to take her back. However, on the

same day, phone call was again received from the appellant's

house that the deceased committed suicide.

3. The parents of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 and two

brothers who were examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 also narrated

the same facts as P.W.1.

4. P.W.6, an independent witness stated that she was

neighbor of P.W.2 and also narrated about the dowry given at

the time of the marriage. On the day of death, she stated that

the deceased made phone call to her house and P.W.2 talked

to her and she was unaware of any conversation between the

deceased and P.W.2. On the same day, P.W.6 received a

phone call at 9.00 p.m informing that the deceased committed

suicide and P.W.6, in turn informed P.W.2 and others.

5. P.W.6 was declared hostile to the prosecution case as she

has not spoken to any harassment for additional dowry. She

further stated during her cross-examination that there was no

custom of giving dowry in Rangaraj caste except giving

customary gifts.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in

the original complaint, there is an insertion of word 'dowry'

above the writing customary gifts. When the original

complaint Ex.P1 is seen, in fact, there is an insertion of 'dowry'

written in Telugu language. He further submits that P.Ws.1 to

5 are all interested witnesses, who are parents and brothers of

the deceased. The only independent witness is P.W.6, who

turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not mention

any kind of harassment to the deceased.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State submits that in fact, presumption has to be

drawn as the deceased died within seven years of the marriage

and in view of the statements of the witnesses about

harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellants.

Further, it cannot be said that the witnesses are interested for

the reason of stating about demands or quarrel and the same

would be known to the family members. For the said reason,

the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellants

are guilty of the offence cannot be interfered with.

8. As seen from the complaint Ex.P1, there is a mention

that the deceased was harassed and it was the deceased who

had informed P.Ws.2 and 3 and her brothers regarding

harassment and requested to take her home on 07.05.2009. It

was further mentioned in the complaint that the appellants

were harassing the deceased stating that she had come from a

lower class and ultimately it was a mistake in marrying her.

9. Admittedly, the allegations made in the complaint are

omnibus in nature. There are no specific details given in the

complaint regarding any demand of Rs.45,000/-. In order to

attract an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, there must have

been acts by the appellants, which resulted in harassing the

deceased and consequent to which unbearable harassment,

the deceased must have committed suicide.

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

Bengal vs Indrajit Kundu and others reported in 2020 (1) ALD

(Crl.) 185 (SC), held as follows:

"12. In the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 873 (SC)=(2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court has considered the scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word "instigation", it is held in paragraph 20 as under:

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

11. The ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are lacking for the

reason of all the witnesses not stating specifically regarding

any harassment that was meted out to the deceased resulting

in her committing suicide. However, it was stated by all the

witnesses that the deceased was subjected to harassment as

seen from the complaint and also the evidence.

12. In view of above facts and circumstances, the offence

under Section 306 of IPC against the appellants/accused is

not made out. However, the appellants/accused are liable to

be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

13. In the result, the conviction imposed by the learned

Sessions Judge in S.C.No.51 of 2006 vide judgment dated