Shivaravindra Chowdary, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5699 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.634 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused No.1

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the V Additional District &

Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, in S.C.No.84 of

2006, dated 29.04.2010, convicting the appellant/A1 for the

offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code;

and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years

and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant's

wife committed suicide on 11.01.2005. The father of the deceased-

PW1 lodged a complaint on the very same day at 12.00 noon. In

the said complaint, he stated that the marriage of the deceased

was performed with the appellant on 27.04.2001 and they were

living in a flat which was purchased. They have a daughter and

were living happily without any differences or disputes. The

deceased was carrying 7th month pregnancy and on receipt of a

telephone call, they went to the house of the accused and found

that the deceased was hanging to the ceiling wall with a saree.

PW1 further wrote in the complaint that she had differences with

the appellant regarding setting up a separate family, however, she

committed suicide. Further it is specifically mentioned that there

is no doubt against the appellant or any of his family members.

4. A crime was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and

thereafter during the course of investigation, it was found that the

appellant and the acquitted accused Nos.2 & 3-parents of the

appellant were charge sheeted for the reason of the investigation

revealing that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given as cash, 50

Tulas of gold and also a house at Balramnagar Colony worth

Rs.10 lakhs and other utensils at the time of marriage. They lived

happily for one year and thereafter the appellant and his parents

started harassing the deceased physically and mentally by

demanding additional dowry of Rs.4 lakhs to be brought from the

parents. Since PW1 and PW2 who are parents of the deceased

expressed their inability, harassment continued, ultimately

leading to the suicide of the wife of the appellant.

5. During the course of trial, PW1-father & PW2-mother stated

regarding giving of dowry at the time of marriage and also several

household articles. PW1 further stated that he mortgaged his gold

and gave money to the appellant. For the reason of repeatedly

asking for dowry, though PW1 was incapable, he was provided

money by taking loan and pledging gold. Though an amount of

Rs.5 lakhs was taken for purchase of flat, the said amount was

not paid for any purchase. The deceased was sent away from her

in-laws house asking her to get an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. Though,

the deceased was pregnant, she was not given food properly. For

the reason of continuous harassment for additional dowry she

committed suicide.

6. PW2-mother of the deceased also deposed on similar lines.

PW3-brother of PW1, PW4-brother-in-law of PW1 also

corroborated the fact of taking dowry at the time of marriage and

stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment for

additional dowry.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that, at the very inception complaint was filed at 12.00 noon on

11.01.2005 in which PW1 specifically stated that there were no

disputes and he had no grievance against the appellant and his

family members. It is apparent that PW1 did not complain about

any kind of harassment against this appellant or his parents.

PW1 gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, which was

marked as Ex.P2 in which he narrated regarding the dowry and

also additional dowry that was demanded by the appellant and his

parents. The said complaint was made on 01.03.2005 i.e. nearly

after 50 days from the date of incident. In the said circumstances,

the entire case of the parents of the deceased i.e. PW1 and PW2 is

an exaggerated version and an afterthought as evident from Ex.P2

and the deposition made in the court. The learned Sessions Judge

had committed an error in relying upon such exaggerated version

to convict this appellant. For the said reason, prayed to reverse

the order of conviction.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri

S.Sudershan would submit that PW1 and PW2 who are the

parents of the appellant are the persons who would have

knowledge about harassment meted out to his daughter. Further,

on the date of death of the deceased, it is natural that the parents

will be in a state of shock and such statement which was made on

the date of death cannot be considered. PW8- Sub Inspector of

Police, Emigration Police Station, Airport, Shamshabad, who

investigated the case was biased and deliberately did not record

the statement of harassment which was stated by PW1. For the

reason of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge being correct,

the same cannot be set aside.

9. Having perused the record, though an initial statement was

made by PW1 stating that he did not have any grievance against

this appellant and others, subsequently, a complaint under Ex.P2

was made to the Commissioner of Police, alleging that the

appellant and her parents demanded dowry and further on several

occasions, the appellant had demanded additional dowry. Though,

several instances were narrated in the deposition before the Court

and also the complaint made under Ex.P2, except stating that on

several occasions accused demanded, there is no evidence of

harassment on record which is in close proximity to the death of

the deceased.

10. PW8 who is the Investigating Officer has entered into witness

box and admitted regarding the entire version of harassment that

was stated by PWs.1 and 2 in the court as omission, when the

witnesses were examined.

11. As seen from the Inquest Report, on the very same day, the

opinion which is reflected in the Inquest Report was that there

was harassment by the husband and parents-in-law, during

which time PW1 and PW2 were also examined.

12. The element of cruelty that was meted out by the accused is

apparent from the statements. Though there is an exaggerated

version which is given by the close relatives, it may be on account

of the sufferance due to the loss of their daughter. The evidence

has to be scrutinized carefully to arrive at a conclusion whether

the deceased was treated cruelly.

13. Several allegations are made regarding the demand of this

appellant for additional dowry, for which reason, it can be

concluded that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for

additional dowry. However in the absence of any specific

allegations regarding any harassment soon before death, the

conviction recorded under Section 304-B cannot be sustained.

14. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, the appellant is found guilty for the offence under Section-

498 A of Indian Penal Code. Though, no separate charge is framed

under the said provision, the contents of the charge under Section

304-B clearly indicate that the appellant subjected the deceased to

cruelty. The said statement of charge suffices and no separate

charge need be framed.

15. However, since the incident is of the year 2005 and nearly

17 years have passed since the date of incident, this Court deems

it appropriate to reduce sentence of the appellant to the period

already undergone.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing

the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant to the period

already undergone.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:08.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 634 OF 2010

Dt. 08.11.2022

tk