Telangana High Court
Jakkula Venkanna, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 21 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.18 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant herein was convicted under Section 498A of
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and also to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for two months vide
judgment dated 14.12.2007 in SC No.178 of 2007 passed by the
VI Additional Sessions Judge(III FTC) Warangal at Mahabubabad.
Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the wife of the
deceased, who filed a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police
stating that on the previous night the deceased went to work at
9.00 p.m. At 10.30 p.m, P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that her husband
was killed by son-in-law, A1. A1 was married to P.W.2 in the
year 1989 and two years after the marriage, A1 started harassing
for additional dowry. The deceased gave 20 goats and paid
Rs.30,000/-. With the said amount, A1 purchased land and also
purchased one tractor. Thereafter he put up a fertilizer shop. A1
was addicted to vices and he closed the shop. Thereafter, A1
continued to harass P.W.1 for additional dowry. In the said
circumstances, A1 killed the deceased on 26.02.2006 at his work
place i.e., at Mirchi thrashing unit.
3. The police, after completion of investigation file charge
sheet under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and under Section
498A IPC against A1 to A3. Charges were also framed for the
said offences by trial court.
4. The prosecution produced P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1
to P12 and also the material objects M.Os.1 to 8.
5. The learned Sessions Judge after trial, found A1 not guilty
for the offence under Section 302-IPC read with Section 34 IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however, A1 only
was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and
accordingly, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. A2 and A3
were acquitted of all the charges.
6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vague
allegations regarding dowry are made. He submits that the State
has not filed any appeal for the acquittal of the accused i.e., A1 to
A3 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Such vague
allegations of demand for dowry, though deposed by P.W.2
cannot be looked into and cannot infer any demand made by A1
from the deceased. If at all P.W.2, who is the wife of A1 harassed
for dowry, there would have been panchayat held in the village.
None of the witnesses speak about any complaint prior to the
alleged incident of death of father in law of A1.
7. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor submits
that there are clear allegations of demand for dowry. P.W.2 who
is the wife of A1, in fact stated that dowry was given at the time
of marriage and also subsequently 20 goats and Rs.30,000/-was
given. The appellant was addicted to drinking and gambling, for
which reason he has lost all the money which was given by the
deceased and also which was invested in the business. For the
said reason conviction cannot be interfered with.
8. Since the state has not preferred any appeal against the
acquittal of A1 to A3 under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, the
said circumstances regarding finding the deceased and the
recoveries is not dealt with.
9. The remaining evidence with regard to demand for
additional dowry and in the process asking P.W.2 to get money
from the deceased is consistent. Pursuant to the demand made
for dowry, the deceased had given sheep and also cash, which
was used for purchase of land and by selling land A-1 invested in
fertilizer shop and incurred losses. Thereafter, A-1 was insisting
P.W.2 to get more amounts, the acts of A-1 amounts to cruelty,
as such, finding of the trial Court that the A-1 is guilty of an
offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be interfered with.
10. The offence is of the year 2006 and the allegations are about
additional dowry. The appellant was aged 35 years in the year
2006, he would be around 50 years, no useful purpose will be
served in sending him to jail after such a long period. For the
said reason, the period of imprisonment under Section 498A is
reduced to the already undergone.
11. In the result, the conviction of the appellant rendered by the
trial Court is maintained. However, the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellant.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall
stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.18 of 2008
Date: 21.07.2022.
Kvs
