The State Of Telangana vs Kadari Parsharamulu
2022 Latest Caselaw 2880 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2880 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Kadari Parsharamulu on 17 June, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 106 OF 2021


JUDGMENT:

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar acquitted

the respondent/accused for the offences under section 498-A

and 304-B of IPC by judgment dated 19.10.2020. Aggrieved

by the same, this appeal is filed by the State seeking

interference by this Court to reverse the order of acquittal.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.06.2015, the

defacto complainant/P.W.1 filed a complaint stating that his

deceased daughter's marriage was performed with the

respondent/accused on 22.06.2014 and at the time of

marriage, cash of Rs.50,000/- and one gunta of land at

Vidyanagar, Karimnagar was given as dowry. After the

marriage, though his deceased daughter and the

respondent/accused lived happily for three months, however,

the respondent/accused and his mother started demanding

for additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh. Due to the continuous

harassment meted out by the respondent/accused and his

mother, the deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and when

the family members went for coolie work, the deceased

committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan.

3. During trial, the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined

and also marked Exs.P1 to P6. The learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the respondent for the following reasons; i) the

prosecution failed to prove that any dowry was given to the

respondent/accused; ii) during the course of investigation, the

demand of Rs.1.00 lakh was made for the purpose of digging

of borewell and the witnesses have contradicted their own

version by stating that there was a demand for additional

dowry for Rs.1.00 lakh; iii) there are no specific dates or any

instances stated by the prosecution witnesses regarding

subjecting the deceased to harassment for additional dowry;

iv) though there were several houses surrounding the house of

the respondent, the Investigating Officer failed to examine any

neighbours; v) though the case was that there were mediators

for the payment of Rs.50,000/- dowry and also settlement of

demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, however no such mediators are

examined;

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that

P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are the father, sister and brother of the

deceased deposed consistently regarding the demand of

additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and dowry of Rs.50,000/-,

the Sessions Judge committed an error in disbelieving the said

evidence and acquitted the respondent/accused. Since the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and believable, their

evidence cannot be brushed aside for the reason of they being

very close relatives of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits

that there are no specific instances of harassment and in fact,

the deceased died in the house of P.W.1, which is her

matrimonial house. It is for P.W.1, the father, to explain under

what circumstances the death occurred in the background of

there being no harassment of any dowry demand.

6. As seen from the record, P.Ws.1 to 3 have consistently

spoken about demand of Rs.50,000/- and that there was

demand for additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh. However there

are no specific instances narrated by the witnesses to convince

the Court. In such cases where death occurs, it is likely that

grief results in hatred against the husband and in-laws and

accuse them of being responsible for the suicide.

Exaggerations and false implications are bound to happen. In

the said background of interested witnesses making such

allegations and when no specific instances given, the Court

would not accept such vague allegations since something more

than a bald allegation is required to convince the Court and at

the same time the Court to accept that the allegations as

correct.

7. Further the witnesses have admittedly stated that

Rs.1.00 lakh was asked for the purpose of digging borewell

during investigation and elicited during cross-examination.

Such demand for digging of borewell would not amount to

demand of additional dowry. It is necessary to prove that the

demand of dowry should have been made at the time of

marriage or subsequently in consideration for marriage, as can

be deduced from the definition of dowry under Dowry

Prohibition Act.

8. In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that demand for domestic expenses and

purchasing of manure cannot be said to be demand for dowry.

In the case of Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder v. State of

West Bengal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 10 as

follows:

"10. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304-B are as follows:

(1) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in the

absence of any harassment proximate to the death of the

(2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721

(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 202

deceased, the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC would not be

attracted.

10. The allegation that there was demand for additional

dowry as discussed above was subsequently stated though

during the course of investigation, it was mentioned that an

amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was towards the digging of borewell.

The deceased died in her matrimonial house and except saying

that there was a demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, there is no evidence