Jangam Ashok, Regodu M, Medak ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5855 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.106 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A1 aggrieved

by the conviction recorded by the VI Additional Sessions Judge

(FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy, in S.C.No.398 of 2006

dt.31.12.2009, convicting the accused No.1 for the offence

punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and

sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of seven years.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant and

the deceased were married on 23.04.2004 and at the time of

marriage Rs.60,000/- cash and other household articles were

given as dowry. Both of them lived together happily. However, six

months after marriage, the appellant and the other acquitted

accused Nos.2 to 5 started harassing the deceased for additional

dowry. There was 'panchayat' that was held and on the advice of

elders, the deceased was treated well, however, again the deceased

was subjected to cruelty by demanding the amount of Rs.20,000/-

inspite of the deceased being pregnant. For the reason of the

deceased being beaten as to why she did not abort her pregnancy,

the deceased went to her parents house for three weeks.

Thereafter, the appellant went to his in-laws house and beat the

deceased and demanded the amount of Rs.20,000/- and stated

that if Rs.20,000/- is not given, he would apply for divorce.

4. On 26.03.2006, PW1 lodged a complaint stating that the

deceased was missing from the house and also narrated that there

were differences between this appellant for the reason of not

providing additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The body of the

deceased was found in a well, as such, a second complaint-Ex.P2

was given by PW1 stating that they found a cell phone book and in

the cell phone book she has written the cause of her death as her

husband. On the basis of the evidence collected, the Police filed

charge sheet against this appellant and four others for the offence

under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having framed the charges

under Section 304-B of IPC, examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked

Exs.P1 to P10 on behalf of prosecution and after consideration of

evidence convicted the accused under section 304-B of the IPC.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the

deceased was in matrimonial house when she committed suicide

and she was staying in the house since one month prior to her

committing suicide and except stating that 3 days prior to her

committing suicide, the appellant has gone to the house and

threatened to give divorce if the amount of Rs.20,000/- is not

given, there is no evidence to suggest that he had abetted suicide.

7. He relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court

in Satvir Singh and others v. State of Punjab1 and argued that

there should be nexus between the death and the cruelty alleged

by the witnesses. Unless such proximity is shown, there cannot be

conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal code.

8. He also relied upon the Judgments of Honourable Supreme

Court in G.M.Ravi @ G.Purushotham v. State of A.P.2 and

Raman Kumar v. State of Punjab3 and argued that when there

is no personal knowledge about the harassment, the Court cannot

rely upon such hearsay evidence to infer harassment.

9. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri

S.Sudershan submits that Ex.P3 is suicide note which was

produced by the prosecution at the time of trial. No reasons are

given by the Investigating Officer as to why he did not collected

Ex.P3. However, PW1 has marked Ex.P3-suicide note during the

AIR 2001 SC 2828(1)

2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 344 (A.P.)

(2009) 16 SCC 35

course of his evidence and also identified the signature and

writings of the deceased. The very incident of the appellant beating

the deceased, 3 days prior to her suicide is enough to fall within

the provision of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. For the

said reasons, he prayed the Court to confirm the conviction.

10. In the complaint and also evidence of witnesses PW1 to PW4,

the only allegation is that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- by

the appellant and others. Though the deceased was carrying 5th

month pregnancy, she was sent to her matrimonial house and

there she committed suicide. Though the witnesses claimed that

the deceased was pregnant, the Postmortem report does not

indicate that she was carrying pregnancy. The incident which

occurred, three days prior to the death regarding beating and

demand of Rs.20,000/- would amount to cruelty as defined under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code. However, the solitary

incident as spoken to by the witnesses is not sufficient to infer

that it lead to forcing the deceased to commit suicide.

11. The suicide note-Ex.P3 which was introduced during the

course of trial was not relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge

for the reason of not collecting the said suicide note during the

course of investigation. Even according to the phone book that

was seized near the well where the deceased was found, in which

it was written that the cause of death was her husband. When

there is a mention regarding her husband in the phone book, the

detail note Ex.P3 filed by the prosecution creates a doubt

regarding the note being genuine.

12. It is not known as to why the prosecution witnesses have

stated that the deceased was carrying pregnancy when no such

evidence was found during the course of postmortem. Though the

witnesses alleged that the deceased was beaten, no such ante

mortem injuries are found in the Postmortem report. The solitary

incident as narrated by the witnesses, 3 days prior to her

committing suicide, in my opinion, would not be enough to drive a

woman to commit suicide. However, for the reason of there being a

demand for additional dowry, apparently, the deceased was

subjected to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A. For the said

reason, the conviction under Section 304-B of Indian Penal code is

set aside. However, the appellant/A1 is convicted for the offence

under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

six months imprisonment.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed convicting

the appellant/A1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The conviction

recorded by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at

Kamareddy, in S.C.No.398 of 2006 dt.31.12.2009, convicting the

accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of

the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. The imprisonment already

undergone by the appellant shall be given set off. Further, the

concerned court shall secure the presence of this appellant and

sent him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:16.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 106 OF 2010

Dt. 16.11.2022

tk