Ramtenki Parvathalu vs State Of Ap., Rep.By Its P.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 5800 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 111 OF 2012


JUDGMENT

Accused No. 1 in S.C.No.91 of 2011 preferred this appeal

challenging the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court) at Asifabad, dated 19.01.2012. The

appellant herein, along with A.2, was charged for the offence

under Section 304-B of IPC for allegedly subjecting the

deceased-Suverna to cruelty demanding additional dowry and

causing her death within seven years of her marriage with A.1.

Through the said judgment, both the accused were found not

guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and were

acquitted of the said charge. However, the appellant herein,

A.1, was found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC

and was convicted accordingly and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six

months.

2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to the

conviction of the appellant-A.1, in brief, is as follows:

P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the younger brother and P.W.3 is

the brother of the deceased. A.1 is the husband and A.2 is the

mother-in-law of the deceased. Marriage of deceased was

performed with A.1 three years prior to the date of incident. At

the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave net cash of Rs.30,000/- to A.1

towards dowry apart from other articles. After the marriage, the

couple led marital life happily for about one year. Subsequently,

A.1 and A.2 started harassing the deceased demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and necked her out of the

house. P.W.1 assured the accused that he would arrange the

money as soon as possible and sent the deceased back to her in-

law's house. However, the accused continued to harass the

deceased demanding additional dowry. About six months back,

A.2 brought the deceased to his house alleging that she was

having illicit contacts with neighbours and demanded to give

additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and left the deceased at his

house and did not take her back in spite of his repeated

requests. That on 06.06.2010, at about 1100 hours, unable to

bear the harassment of the accused, the deceased consumed

pesticide poison. While undergoing treatment at Karimnagar

Government Head Quarters Hospital, she died at 1330 hours.

Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1, P.W.7,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennur, registered a case in Crime No.

100 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, issued FIR

under Ex.P.4, and forwarded the same to all concerned and took

up investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.7

proceeded to Karimnagar Government Head Quarters Hospital,

sent the requisition to P.W.10, Tahsildar, Karimnagar, examined

the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.10 conducted

inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

P.W.6 and another. P.W.8, Assistant Civil Surgeon, held autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5, Post-

Mortem Examination Report. P.W.9, the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Mancherial, took up further investigation, examined the

witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of

offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama under

EX.P.2 in the presence of panch witnesses, recorded the material

objects i.e. empty poison powder sachet of Miltaf Solouble and

steel bowl under the cover of panchanama in the presence of

mediators, drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence under

Ex.P.8, arrested the accused on 15.06.2010 and sent them to

judicial custody. After receipt of necessary reports and after

completion of investigation, P.W.9 laid the charge sheet against

the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chennur. The accused denied

the charges and claimed for trial.

3. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur, after

securing the presence of the accused and following the due

procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C., committed the case to

the Court of Sessions observing that the offences punishable

under Section 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11

besides the material objects 1 & 2. On behalf of the defence,

none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were

marked. The trial Court after analyzing the oral and

documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant

for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, as indicated above,

while acquitting the appellant and A.2 for the offence under

Section 304-B IPC.

5. The learned counsel representing the appellant-A.1

contended that although the trial Court has rightly acquitted the

appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, erred in

convicting him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC though

the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. When the appellant was

acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, it is crystal

clear that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased and

hence, no accusation can be attributed against the appellant

even for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, more particularly,

when the deceased was living in her parents' house since one

year prior to the date of incident. It is contended that the trial

Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, as

they are family members and close relatives of the deceased.

It is contended that in the absence of any specific allegation that

the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty, he cannot be

convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Therefore, he

prays to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial Court.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor while trying to sustain the judgment of the trial

Court, contended that although the P.Ws. 1 to 3 are family

members of the deceased, their evidence is cogent and

consistent as to the harassment for additional dowry meted out

to the deceased and therefore, the appellant had rightly

convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A

and the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that

arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the

guilt of the appellant-A.1 for the offence under Section 498-A

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the conviction, as

recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to

be set aside or modified?

8. In this case, the main witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 4.

P.Ws.5 to 10 are the formal witnesses who speak about the

procedure followed by the prosecution while conducting the

proceedings. P.W.5 is the panch witness for seizure

panchanama under Ex.P.2 and P.W.6 is the witness for inquest

panchanama under Ex.P. 3. P.W. 7 is the Sub-Inspector of

Police, who registered FIR and he speaks about his initiating the

proceedings based on Ex.P.1 complaint etc. P.W.8 is the doctor,

who issued Ex.P.5 Post-Mortem Examination Report opining that

the cause of death was due to Organophosphate poison. Ex.P.6

is the FLS Report and Ex.P.7 is the final report. P.W.9 is the

investigating officer, who speaks about his taking up further

investigation from P.W.7, arresting the accused and filing the

charge sheet against the accused. P.W.10 speaks about his

conducting the inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

9. As seen from impugned judgment, the trial Court

recorded the conviction based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

Therefore, it is to be seen that whether the evidence of these

witnesses is sufficient to hold the conviction and sentence

recorded by the trial Court. The distinction between 304-B and

498-A IPC was clarified in Shanti v. the State of Haryana1,

and Keshab Chandra Panda v. State Haryana2. These two

sections are not mutually exclusive. While cruelty defined in

Section 498-A is the same as cruelty under Section 304-B,

under Section 498A, cruelty itself is punishable. But, under

section 304B, dowry death as a result of cruelty is punishable.

Further, Section 304-B calls for a time frame of seven years,

something which is not present in Section 498-A. Moreover, a

person charged under Section 340-B can also be convicted

under Section 498-A without the charge being there if such a

case is made out. Keeping the said legal position in mind, it is

to be seen whether the prosecution was able to bring home the

(1991) 1 SCC 371

1995 Cr.L.J. 174

guilt of the appellant-A.1 under Section 498-A IPC through the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Although it is the main contention of

the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of these

witnesses cannot be relied upon to base conviction for the

reason that they are close relatives and interested witnesses, the

said contention cannot be countenanced. For, if their evidence is

found consistent and true, the fact of their being relatives cannot

by itself discredit their evidence.

10. P.W.1 is the complainant who lodged Ex.P.1

complaint with the Police. He is the father of the deceased. In

the complaint, he stated that he performed the marriage of

deceased with A.1 three years prior to the date of incident; that

at the time of marriage, he gave Rs.30,000/- net cash, apart

from household articles; that one year later, the accused started

harassing the deceased physically and mentally by demanding

additional dowry of an amount of Rs.20,000/- and sent the

deceased to his house. It is stated that he sent the deceased to

her in-laws with a promise to give the said money at a later

stage, but the accused continued to harass the deceased. About

six months back, A.2 left the deceased at his house for not

giving the additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and suspecting her

character, and though he tried to convince her, A.2 did not hear

him and went away. So many times, though they called the

accused over phone, the accused did not take back the deceased

to their house. Due to the harassment of the accused for

additional dowry, vexed with her life, on 06.06.2010, at 11:00

hours, the deceased consumed pesticide poison at his house and

while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital,

Karimnagar, she died on the same day at 23:30 hours. Before

the Court, he deposed as P.W.1 inter alia that one year after the

marriage, the accused started harassing the deceased with a

demand of the amount of Rs.20,000/- and harassed her on that

count. They sent her to his house. After one month, he sent the

deceased back to the house of accused accompanied by his son.

Six months thereafter, again the accused left the deceased to his

house accompanied by A.2. He specifically deposed that the

accused are responsible for the death of deceased because they

were demanding additional dowry and also suspected her fidelity

and that they did not allow her to their house even though she

repeatedly telephoned to A.1 to take her back to his house.

Even though he was cross-examined at length, nothing contra is

elicited by the defence.

11. P.W.2, the younger brother of the deceased,

deposed in similar lines of P.W.1 to the effect that both the

accused necked the deceased out of their house demanding an

amount of Rs.20,000/-. He also deposed that during her stay at

their house, the deceased repeatedly requested the appellant-

A.1 over telephone to take her back, but he did not respond. On

one occasion, he too telephoned to the accused, but they refused

to take back the deceased and demanded Rs.20,000/-. Even in

his cross-examination, nothing contra is elicited to discredit his

testimony. P.W.3, another brother of the deceased, also

deposed about the harassment of accused on the demand of

payment of Rs.20,000/- being the balance of agreed amount of

Rs.50,000/-, the accused sending the deceased to their house

and not taking her back in spite of their repeated requests for

not fulfilling their demand of payment of Rs.20,000/-. His

evidence is also cogent and consistent as to the accused sending

the deceased to her parents' house and not taking her back to

their house with the demand of Rs.20,000/-. P.W.4 is the

neighbour and relative of P.W.1, who too speaks as to the

harassment of accused meted out to the deceased for payment

of due amount of Rs.20,000/- and their not taking back to their

house from the house of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, she

denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide as

she was not blessed with children. However, she admitted that

the deceased never informed her about the demand of accused

for payment of Rs.20,000/-. Although there is some

inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.4 as regards her admission

that the deceased never informed her about the demand by the

accused for payment of Rs.20,000/-, the same cannot be taken

into consideration as it would not substantially effect the version

of the prosecution, in view of the consistent and corroborative

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in this regard. The evidence of P.Ws.1

to 3 is consistent, cogent and corroborative as to the demand of

appellant for payment of Rs.20,000/-, his leaving the deceased

at her parents' house, not taking her back in spite of requests of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased over telephone. Thus, the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is to the effect that the appellant

harassed the deceased with the demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/-

and not allowed her to join his company, in spite of her repeated

requests over telephone which clearly establishes the ingredients

of Section 498-A IPC to hold the conviction against the

appellant-A.1. Under these circumstances, this Court sees no

infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court

in convicting and sentencing the appellant-A.1 for the offence

under Section 498-A IPC. The appeal lacks merit and the same

is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

The conviction recorded by the III Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court) at Asifabad in S.C. No. 91 of 2011, dated

19.01.2012 against the appellant for the offence under Section

498-A IPC is hereby confirmed. However, in the circumstances

of the case and as the incident pertains to 2010 and as the

appellant has already served certain period of sentence, the

sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is hereby

modified to that of the period already undergone by the

appellant.

Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

14th NOVEMBER, 2022 Tsr

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 111 OF 2012

DATE: 14-11-2022