Chakali Srinu Kusangi Srinu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5617 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.459 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional District

and Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Medak, in S.C.No.334 of 2007, dated

18.03.2010, convicting the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of

Rs.5,000/-.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is

the wife of the appellant and she married the appellant, five years

prior to her death. At the time of marriage, on demand,

Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid, but, only Rs.10,000/- was

paid. Thereafter, the appellant started harassing the deceased for

the remaining part of the dowry. One month prior to the death of

the deceased, she made a phone call to her father-PW1 stating

that the appellant is harassing for gold, for which 1 ½ Tulas of

gold chain and ½ Tula ear studs were given. One month after

presenting gold ornaments, appellant again started harassing the

deceased. Further, the appellant intended to marry again for the

reason of the deceased not conceiving. PW1 asked the appellant to

wait for another year and on failure of the deceased conceiving, he

would perform appellant's marriage with another girl. Prior to her

death, the deceased stayed for two days in her parents house and

she informed the parents that the accused was harassing her. On

the day of incident, PW1 received a phone call from one of the

villagers and when he went there he observed that the deceased

was hanging.

4. On the basis of the complaint given by PW1, case was

registered for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of

the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PW1

to PW12 and marking Exs.P1 to P18 found the appellant not guilty

for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal

code and accordingly acquitted. However, the learned Sessions

Judge found that this appellant was guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for treating the deceased

cruelly.

6. The crux of the allegations against the appellant is that there

was a demand of additional dowry which PW1 failed to pay at the

time of marriage. Secondly, the deceased was harassed for the

reason of not conceiving.

7. In the statement of PW1-father of the deceased, PW2-brother

of the deceased and PW4-uncle of the deceased, it is stated that

the deceased was subjected to harassment for additional dowry

and for the said reason 1 ½ tula of gold chain and ½ tula of gold

ear studs were given. However, the harassment continued.

8. The learned Sessions Judge found that in fact the deceased

had committed suicide for which reason, the appellant was

acquitted for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian

penal code. No appeal is preferred by the State against the

acquittal.

9. The FIR was registered for the offence under Section 174 of

the Cr.P.C.. However, subsequently the section of law was altered

to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of

investigation it was also found that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty for the reason of this appellant demanding additional

dowry.

10. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 though related to the

deceased, the evidence since consistent cannot be disbelieved only

for the reason of them being relatives of the deceased.

11. Admittedly, the deceased did not conceive for a period of five

years after marriage for which reason the appellant was harassing

her. Though, there is mention of demand of additional dowry, no

details were given either in the complaint or during the trial.

However, the evidence of harassment cannot be disbelieved. The

conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be

interfered with.

12. The offence is of the year 2007. The appellant was aged 26

years at the time of offence. Nearly, 15 years have passed by since

the incident. In view of the allegations made against this

appellant, at this point of time, this Court feels it appropriate to

reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already

undergone.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing

the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:03.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 459 OF 2010

Dt. 03.11.2022

tk