Telangana High Court
Adavandla Meri Victoria 2 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 22 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the
appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 aggrieved by the conviction
recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar
at Jagtial in S.C.No.830 of 2007, dated 02.03.2009,
convicting the appellants/accused 2 to 4 under Section
235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under section
498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. Initially, the appeal was filed by Accused Nos.2 to 4.
However, during the pendency of the appeal, the 1st
appellant/Accused No.2 died. The Counsel for appellants
had filed Death Certificate which shows that the 1st
appellant/Accused No.2 died on 05.11.2015.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the same.
4. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal against 1st
appellant/Accused No.2 is dismissed as abated.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased,
PW1's daughter, was given in marriage to Accused No.1
(died during trial) four years prior to her death. At the time
of marriage, an amount of Rs.30,000/-, one tula of gold
and other household articles were given. She was admitted
to hospital as she suffered and was operated for
Appendicitis. After her hospitalization, the deceased was
brought back home and the Accused Nos.1 to 4 started
harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. PW1
further stated that four days after Dasara festival, Accused
Nos.1 and 2 beat his daughter and sent her out of her
matrimonial house. When she was taken back Accused
Nos.1 and 2 did not allow PW2 who is the wife of PW1 to
enter into the house. Panchayat was held in the village
before the elders 3rd appellant/A4 proclaimed that he will
not allow his daughter unless an amount of Rs.50,000/- is
paid towards additional dowry. Then PW1 agreed to pay
Rs.20,000/- before Christmas. PW1's daughter was taken
back by the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and they went to
Domakonda for eight days. While they were at Domakonda,
Accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed PW1's daughter for
additional dowry. Accused Nos.1 and 3 threatened to kill
his daughter by pouring Kerosene on her if she failed to
bring additional dowry as demanded.
6. Accused No.4 insisted that additional dowry has to be
paid, failing which he will not allow PW1's daughter to live
with Accused No.1. Six months thereafter, PW1's daughter
complained in the police station and after coming back
from the police station, in the absence of PW1 she
consumed poison. While undergoing treatment his
daughter died for which reason PW1 lodged a complaint.
The police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet
against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Section
498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
7. The appellants 2 and 3 who are accused 3 and 4 are
being heard represented by their counsel Sri D.Bhaskar
Reddy.
8. Learned Counsel submits that the evidence of PW1-
father, PW2-caste elder, PW3-relative, have spoken with
regard to demand of dowry and additional dowry. However,
there are no specific allegations that are made against
these appellants 2 and 3 who are Accused Nos.3 and 4.
Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was
any kind of harassment by Accused Nos.3 and 4 prior to
her death. Unless harassment is shown in close proximity
to the death, the ingredients of Section 304-B will not be
attracted. The alleged demand for additional dowry has to
be soon before death and the prosecution witnesses did not
speak anything against these appellants that they in any
manner harassed the deceased prior to her death.
9. Learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment rendered
by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bibi Parwana
Khatoon v. State of Bihar1 wherein their lordships have
held that the relatives of the husband were living at
different places. There was no possibility for the relatives to
harass in the facts of the case, for which reason, Section
(2017) 6 SCC 792
304-B of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted and
accordingly, set aside the conviction of the relatives.
10. He also relied upon the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in Durga Prasad and another v. State of
Madhya Pradesh2 wherein their lordships held that when
bald allegations are made, benefit of doubt has to be
extended. Further, when there is no evidence to prove that
there was harassment prior to her death, it cannot be held
that the offences of Section 304-B of IPC is attracted.
Accordingly, in view of there being no specific instances of
harassment prior to the death, the appellants were
acquitted.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits
that there are specific instances of harassment which are
leveled against these appellants/A3 & A4. He further
submits that PWs.1, 2 and 3 have specifically stated that
dowry was given and for the reason of additional dowry
these appellants/A3 and A4 insisted PW1 to pay the said
(2010) 9 SCC 73
amount. In the said circumstances, the conviction recorded
by the Sessions Court has to be upheld.
12. The allegations made against Accused Nos.1 and 2
are not discussed for the reason of their death and
consequent abatement of the case.
13. The allegations against Accused Nos.3 and 4 are that
they have supported Accused No.1 and 2 in their demand
of additional dowry. Accused No.4 in fact insisted and
threatened PW1 that if dowry amount is not given he would
not allow the deceased-PW1's daughter to live with
Accused No.1.
14. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they have
stated that there was demand of additional dowry.
However, these appellants/A3 and A4 who stayed at
another place admittedly have according to PW1 insisted
for additional dowry. It is not the case of PW1 that Accused
Nos.3 and 4 had asked the deceased for the said dowry
and harassed her for the said purpose. When it is
specifically stated that Accused No.4 had asked PW1 to
fulfill the demand made by Accused No.1, it cannot be held
that the deceased was harassed by Accused Nos.3 and 4.
15. For the reason of there being no specific instances
which were narrated by the prosecution witnesses alleging
that there was any kind of harassment meted out to the
deceased by these appellants No.2 and 3/A3 and A4,
directly, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to these
appellants 2 and 3/A3 and A4.
16. Accordingly, conviction against these appellants 2
and 3/A3 and A4 for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-
B of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby
set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:22.07.2022
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Crl.A.No.247 of 2009
Dated:22.07.2022
tk
