Putti Swamy, vs The State, Rep. By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3882 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.365 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/A1 is convicted for the offence under

Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of seven years vide judgment dated

26.03.2009 in S.C.No.392 of 2005 passed by the II Additional

District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was

married to the appellant/accused two months prior to her

death. At the time of marriage, P.W.1, the mother of the

deceased, agreed to pay Rs.40,000/- cash, 4 tulas gold, 50

tulas silver, utensils and other articles as dowry, but paid

Rs.25,000/- and given 3 tulas gold, 35 tulas silver at the time

of marriage and promised to pay the remaining amount after

the next crop season. The deceased and A1 lived together

happily for a period of 20 days. Thereafter, this appellant and

the acquitted accused (A2 and A3) started harassing the

deceased for additional dowry, for the said reason, PW1

mother under took to pay the balance dowry amount and

requested not to harass the deceased. The deceased was sent

to the house of P.W.1 and on request of P.W.1, the deceased

was taken back. Six days thereafter, the accused called P.W.1

stating that the deceased hanged herself with a rope in the

house. Accordingly, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1.

The police after completing the investigation filed charge sheet

against the appellant, father-in-law and sister-in-law

(acquitted A2 and A3). Charge was framed under Section 304-

B of IPC against all the three accused.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the

prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 and marking Exs.P1 to P5

found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B

of IPC and acquitted A2 and A3.

4. P.W.1 who is the mother of the deceased narrated all the

incidents that lead to the deceased committing suicide. P.W.2

is the maternal aunt who supported the case of P.W.1 that

dowry was given at the time of marriage and for the remaining

dowry, the deceased was harassed. P.W.3, who is the

neighbor who also spoke about the dowry harassment.

5. Learned counsel for the accused argued that the

allegations are made only for the purpose of the case and

absolutely there was no demand made by the accused. Both

the acquitted accused i.e., A2 and A3 stand on the same

footing and the benefit of doubt extended to A2 and A3 should

also be extended to A1 and sought for reversing the judgment

of the trial Court.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that this is a case where there was constant

harassment by the husband, in-laws, for which reason, the

deceased committed suicide. The circumstance wherein the

deceased committed suicide within two months of marriage is

enough to draw presumption under Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act and there are no witnesses who spoke contrary

to the prosecution case and the judgment of the trial Court

cannot be interfered with.

7. As seen from the evidence on record, the allegation

against this accused is that he had harassed the deceased for

the remaining dowry. During the course of cross-examination,

it was admitted that prior to the marriage of deceased with A1,

she consumed poison, for which reason she was treated in

Gandhi Hospital. However, the reason for consuming the

poison by the deceased prior to her marriage was not stated by

P.W.1 or any of the other witnesses. A suggestion was made

to the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 that the deceased was married

previously with one Boini Kishtaiah. Though, P.W.1 deposed

that the deceased consumed poison, P.W.2 refused to

acknowledge that the deceased drank poison and was treated

in Gandhi Hospital.

8. It is the specific case of the defence that the deceased

was earlier married and also for the reasons unknown she

drank poison and she was treated at Gandhi Hospital, though

there wasn't any kind of harassment. The deceased committed

suicide for the reasons which were not known to the accused.

The Investigating Officer admits that she was married earlier

and the said thing was suppressed by P.Ws.1 to 3 for the

reasons best known to them.

9. The said circumstance of previous marriage and her

earlier consuming poison are major factors to decide upon the

temperament and conduct of the deceased and also the

witnesses. From the evidence of P.W.8, it is apparent that

P.Ws.1 to 3 have suppressed the factum of previous marriage

and also the attempted suicide by the deceased. In the said

circumstances, when the witnesses are suppressing the

incidents that transpired, total reliance cannot be placed upon

the witnesses to hold that they were speaking truth. Though

the Investigating Officer admits that the deceased was earlier

married and consumed poison, the reasons are also not

investigated by the Investigating Officer.

10. It is stated by the witnesses that deceased lived happily

for a period of 20 days and thereafter, without specifying any

incident regarding the demand for dowry and A2 and A3,

acquitted accused were living separately had nothing to do

with the marital life of the deceased as found by trial Court.

However P.W.1 chose to implicate A2 and A3 also apparently

by making false allegations against A2 and A3. However, the

learned Sessions Judge found that the allegations made

against A2 and A3 were incorrect and acquitted them of the

charge under Section 304B IPC. Evaluating the entire

scenario of the witnesses speaking falsehood and suppressing

the actual happening, this Court deems it appropriate to

extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

11. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court vide

judgment in S.C.No.392 of 2005 dated 26.03.2009 is set aside

acquitting the appellant. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail

bonds shall stand cancelled.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.365 OF 2009

Date: 26.07.2022.

kvs