Pallpu Ram Babu And Another, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3963 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.455 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to

under rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and

shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer

imprisonment for three months, and further sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of

Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for

one month for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. A1 is further convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for

the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, however

A1 and A2 were found not guilty for the offence under Section

3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and A2 is not found guilty for the

offence under Section 304-B of IPC, vide judgment in

S.C.No.365 of 2007, dated 28.11.2008 passed by the V

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, the present

appeal is filed by the conviction.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1's daughter

(deceased) was married to the 1st respondent/A1 and at the

time of marriage, Rs.10,000/- was given towards dowry and

she was sent to her matrimonial house. A1 and the daughter

of P.W.1 (deceased) lead happy marital life for a period of two

months and thereafter, the appellants started harassing the

deceased for getting more dowry. For the said reason, both the

appellants beat the deceased. The deceased narrated the said

incidence of harassment for additional dowry to P.Ws.1 and 2

(parents). The caste elders conducted panchayat five times and

sent the deceased to the house of the appellants. However, the

harassment did not stop and continued. A1 and A2 and the

deceased were staying at Seethanagaram attending to stone

cutting work.

3. On 22.06.2006, P.W.1 received phone call from P.W.5

stating that his daughter consumed pesticide and was

admitted to Bhadrachalam Hospital. P.W.1, 2 and others went

to see the deceased in the hospital. In the hospital, they came

to know that the appellants 1 and 2 and the deceased went to

Atchuthapuram village for coolie work and there appellants

cut goat and prepared curry and after eating and drinking,

they entered into quarrel with the deceased. On the very same

day after quarrel, the deceased consumed pesticide and was

shifted to hospital. A complaint was made on the next day at

5.30 p.m, which was registered for the offence under Section

304-B of IPC in Cr.No.53 of 2006 by the Bhadrachalam Rural

Police.

4. The police after investigation filed charge for the said

offence and charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge.

On completion of trial and the evidence produced by the

prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to

19 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and after considering both oral

and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge

convicted the accused as stated supra.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants for the

offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which

makes giving and taking dowry a penal offence. However, the

Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, which conviction cannot be

maintained for the reason of the Court not accepting that an

offence was committed under Section 3 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. He further argued that the appellants were

doing coolie work and except making omnibus allegations

nothing is stated specifically regarding the alleged demand for

dowry as such the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC

cannot be maintained.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits

that P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the parents have spoken about the

harassment. For the reason of P.Ws.1 and 2 being parents,

their evidence cannot be discarded.

7. From the evidence on record, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the

parents, who have stated about the deceased being married to

A1 by giving dowry of Rs.10,000/-. The evidence of P.Ws.1

and 2 is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 8, who are

village elders and stated that panchayats were held regarding

the demand for additional dowry from P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.3,

4 and 5 stated that the deceased died at Atchuthapuram.

However, P.Ws.3 to 5 have not stated anything about any

quarrel between the deceased and the appellants.

8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 8 go to show that dowry

was given at the time of marriage. However, except the

witnesses stating that there was demand for additional dowry,

none of the witnesses speak about either the quantum of

dowry or what was asked by the appellants herein. In case of

not mentioning any amount or gifts that were asked towards

additional dowry, it cannot be assumed that there was a

demand for additional dowry. By vaguely saying that there was

a demand for additional dowry, the prosecution has not

discharged their burden of proving that there was demand of

dowry. However, P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 states that there were

several panchayats held regarding the additional dowry. There

appears to be disputes in between the deceased and the

appellants. However, when there are no specific details given

regarding the additional dowry, the court cannot come to a

conclusion regarding the allegation being correct.

9. According to P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, there was a quarrel at

Atchutyapuram village, where they arranged a lunch and

thereafter there was an altercation. The reason for altercation

and the quarrel in between the deceased and the appellants is

not stated by P.Ws.4 and 5 except stating that there was some

quarrel, for which, she consumed poison, it cannot be said

that there was any demand for dowry and further, when the

reason for quarreling in between the deceased and the

appellants is not stated, it cannot be inferred that it is only for

the reason of additional dowry.

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

Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra1, held as follows:

"9. The most fundamental constituent for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the woman must be a dowry death. The ingredients for making out an offence under Section 304-B have been reiterated in several rulings of this Court. Four prerequisites for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B are as follows:

(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance;

(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage;

(2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401

(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and

(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry."

11. The prosecution has failed to establish that there was

any demand or panchayat that was held which is proximate to

the death. It is the specific case of the prosecution that there

was a quarrel at Atchutyapuram and none of the witnesses

have stated that P.Ws.3 to 5 who are present when the quarrel

had taken place and deceased consumed pesticides stated

anything about the reason for quarrel.

12. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the

deceased was subjected to harassment for additional dowry

and for the said reason, she committed suicide. In view of

above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove

the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

13. However, the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 11

regarding quarrel between the deceased and A1 was

specifically stated, the constant quarrels in marital life, though

vaguely stated that it was towards additional dowry, such

constant fights would amount to cruelty. For the said reason,

the conviction under Section 304B of IPC is set aside however

conviction under 498-A of IPC against A1 is maintained.

14. Since the offence is of the year 2006 and 16 years have

lapsed since the alleged incident, for the reason of their being

no specific allegations regarding the quantum of dowry except

stating that there were constant fights, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already

undergone under Section 498-A of IPC.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall

stands closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:29.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.455 OF 2009

Date:29.07.2022.

kvs