G. Yadaiah vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3758 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3758 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

G. Yadaiah vs The State Of A.P. on 18 July, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1409 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section

304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the

mother of the deceased filed complaint on 27.05.2001 stating

that her daughter who is wife of the appellant/accused herein

was married three years prior to the complaint. At the time of

marriage, it was agreed to give dowry of Rs.1,10,000/- and

Rs.80,000/- was paid and the remaining amount was

promised to be paid at a later date. P.W.1 further stated that

accused and her deceased daughter lived happily for two years

and thereafter, the accused and his parents started harassing

the deceased for bringing Rs.30,000/-dowry, which was earlier

agreed at the time of marriage. A panchayat was held in the

presence of PWs.2, 5, Buchaiah and Lingaiah. At the time of

panchayat, elders advised P.W.1 to give balance dowry and

accordingly, P.W.1 undertook to pay the said amount. The

said panchayat was held two or three months prior to her

death. Again, the deceased informed P.W.1 that her

husband/accused and her in-laws are harassing for not giving

the agreed amount of Rs.30,000/-. P.W.1 promised to pay the

said amount, for which reason, her deceased daughter was

taken by the accused. After one day, the neighbors of the

accused herein called P.W.1 and informed that her daughter

committed suicide. P.W.1 went and saw that nobody

including the accused was present at the incident, as such,

she filed complaint. The said version of giving dowry and

panchayat being held was supported by P.W.2 and P.W.5

3. It was argued on behalf of the accused that false

complaint was made against the accused for the reason of the

deceased committing suicide and omnibus and vague

allegations are made in the complaint and also before the

Court, for which reason, any abetment or cruelty cannot be

believed. The conviction under Section 304-B of IPC has to be

set aside.

4. Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that even according to the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 5,

the demand for dowry is proved and also a panchayat was

held, wherein it was settled that Rs.30,000/- has to be paid

and P.W.1 has undertaken to do so. One day prior to her

death, the deceased was taken from the house of P.W.1, as

such it cannot be said that there was no harassment soon

before her death, therefore the conviction under Section 304-B

of IPC is proper and cannot be interfered with.

5. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, there was

no demand from the accused herein for a period of two years.

P.W.1 specifically stated that the accused and her deceased

daughter lived happily for two years in the house of the

accused. The version that there was a demand for remaining

part of the dowry, after two years of marriage, and at the same

time, the accused looked after the deceased properly for the

said two years appears to be improbable. However, the

independent witnesses P.Ws.2 and 5 also spoke about the

panchayat that was held relating to demand for Rs.30,000/-,

which was promised at the time of marriage. In the said

circumstances, when the deceased was living happily with the

accused for a period of two years and thereafter issues arose

regarding the remaining part of dowry, which was over a

period of nearly one year. In the said circumstances, the

ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not satisfied.

6. In Girish Singh v. State of Uttarakhand1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

"33. Thus, it can be seen that the offence created by Section 304B requires the following elements to be present in order that it may apply:

I. Within 7 years of the marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the wife).

II. The death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury. OR The death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances.

III. It must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

IV. The cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband.

V. The cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

34. Section 304B treats this as a dowry death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it further provides that husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It

AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4529

provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated under Section 304B of the IPC, has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of Section 304B."

7. As seen from the evidence, though the deceased was

taken to the house of the accused one day prior to her death,

it is not known as to what transpired either in the house of

P.W.1 or subsequent to the accused taking the deceased to his

house on the previous day. There are no allegations of any

physical abuse for the alleged demand of Rs.30,000/-.

However, in the back ground of the independent witnesses

stating that there was a panchayat held for an amount of

Rs.30,000/-, without giving any specific date, but stated that

it was three months prior to the death, such panchayat being

held, cannot be said that it is proximate to the date of suicide

by the deceased.