M.Anand Kumar Goud And 3 Others vs State Of Ap.,Rep By Its P.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 5950 Tel

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD
                          *****
             Criminal Appeal No.426 OF 2012

Between:

M. Anand Kumar Goud & Others               ... Appellants

                           And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Hyderabad                                   ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:          17.11.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1   Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to        Yes/No
     see the Judgments?

 2   Whether the copies of judgment
     may be marked to Law                Yes/No
     Reporters/Journals

 3   Whether Their
     Ladyship/Lordship wish to see       Yes/No
     the fair copy of the Judgment?


                                        __________________
                                              K.SURENDER, J
                                  2




           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER


                     + CRL.A. No. 426 of 2012



% Dated 17.11.2022



# M. Anand Kumar Goud & Others                       ... Appellants
                           And
$The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad                                ...
Respondent




! Counsel for the Appellants: Smt D. Sangeetha Reddy


^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S.Sudershan,

                                     Additional Public Prosecutor


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
                                 3


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.426 of 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused against the

judgment in SC No.521 of 2011 dated 04.05.2012 passed by

the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Secunderabad, whereby A1 to A4 were convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years under Section 498-A of IPC, further convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three years under Section 306 of IPC and also convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months each under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st appellant

married the daughter of P.W.1 on 17.04.2003. A2 and A3 are

the parents of A1 and A4 is the daughter of A2 and A3. At the

time of marriage, 150 sq.yds of land was given at Uppal, ten

tulas of gold and Rs.1.00 lakh cash and other house hold

articles were given.

3. A1 to A4 used to harass the deceased physically and

mentally on petty issues and also demanded for additional

dowry. Though the appellants were counseled, there was no

change in the conduct of these appellants. On 09.02.2011,

A1, A2 and A4 beat the deceased, for which reason, a

complaint was lodged with Chilkalguda Police Station and

counseling was conducted at Women Police Station,

Begumpet, where the complaint was referred by Chilkalguda

Police. On 15.02.2011 at 8.30 a.m, the deceased called P.W.1

and informed that there was no change in the behavior of the

appellants even after counseling was done in the WPS. P.W.1

started to go to the WPS, Begumpet, however, he received a

phone call stating that his daughter committed suicide. P.W.1

and others went to the house of the appellants and found the

deceased was hanging to the ceiling fan. For the said reason,

complaint Ex.P1 was filed. After investigation, the police filed

charge sheet.

4. Learned Sessions Judge having framed the charges for

the offences under Section 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

found the appellant guilty as aforesaid on the basis of the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P7. The accused during

the course of cross-examination of witnesses marked Exs.D1

to D12.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

submit that the only basis for conviction by the learned

Sessions Judge is by reading into the contents of Ex.P6. Ex.P6

is a complaint, which was alleged to have been filed by the

deceased with the Begumpet police on 09.02.2011. Though,

there is no specific mention of any written complaint being

made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the

prosecution has introduced Ex.P6 only during the course

examination of P.W.8. The said P.W.8, who worked as

Inspector of Police, WPS was not even cited as a witness in the

charge sheet. However, on the basis of the petition filed by the

prosecution, witness was introduced along with Ex.P6 and

Ex.P7. Though the learned Sessions Judge, during the chief

examination of P.W.8 mentioned that mere marking of

documents is different from proving the contents of the

documents, committed error in relying upon the contents of

Ex.P6 which were not corroborated by either P.W.1 or P.W.2,

who are the parents of the deceased. The said Ex.P6 was

confronted to P.W.2, having recalled P.W.2 on 09.03.2012,

though the evidence of P.W.2 was concluded on 12.12.2011.

Since there is no explanation regarding Ex.P6 not being

collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be read

in evidence to base conviction.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.2, who is the mother, in

fact identified the writings of the deceased in Ex.P6 and also

the signature. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions

Judge did not commit any error in relying upon the contents

of Ex.P6. The conviction recorded on the basis of Ex.P6 and

also the evidence of the police and other witnesses, who were

examined during the course of trial are sufficient to convict

and accordingly conviction was recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge. There being ample evidence on record, the

conviction cannot be interfered with.

7. The father of the deceased P.W.1 filed the complaint in

the evening of 15.02.2011 stating that the appellants were

harassing the deceased. The said information about the

harassment meted out to the deceased was the information

given by the deceased. Even according to the complaint

Ex.P1, there was neither any confrontation with the appellants

nor any demand made by these appellants either with P.W.1

or P.W.2. During the course of their examination before the

Court, both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that all the appellants used to

harass for demand of additional dowry without giving any

specific details as to what the demand was. P.W.3, who is the

younger brother of P.W.1 and PW.4, who is brother-in-law of

P.W.1, also stated that the deceased was being harassed by

the appellants for want of additional dowry. However, none of

the witnesses specified as to what was the additional dowry

that was demanded, by appellants. According to P.Ws.1 to 4

appellants never demanded any dowry or money from them

directly. Though, it is stated in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3

that panchayats were held, the names of the elders or people

or any one present during the said panchayats were not given

by any of the witnesses nor examined during the course of

investigation. There are no details of the approximate date

when the said panchayats have taken place.

8. Admittedly, the information given to P.Ws.1 to 4

regarding the harassment is by the deceased, which is

hearsay. The source of information to P.Ws.3 and 4 regarding

the alleged harassment is not stated by them. However, P.Ws.3

and 4 did not state that they were part of any panchayat or

counseling held nor did they speak about any information that

was given by the deceased. Vague and omnibus allegations are

made regarding demand for additional dowry without giving

the details and that too, on the basis of the information given

by the deceased to P.W.1. Such evidence would be insufficient

to infer that there was instigation, provocation or

encouragement to commit suicide. Though a person's self

respect, self-esteem and sensitivity play a major role in the

process of taking extreme step of committing suicide, it has to

be proved by the prosecution that there was intentional aiding

or instigating a person to do a thing. It involves a mental

process and such abetment can be gathered from the facts

and circumstances of the case. Such facts in a case when

looked into collectively should reflect the instigation or aiding

a person in committing suicide, failing which an offence under

Section 306 of IPC cannot be said to have been proved.

9. The finding of guilt by the Sessions Court is on the basis

of Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is dated 10.02.2011. The said complaint was

not collected during the course of investigation. For the first

time, Ex.P6 was brought on record through P.W.8, who was

not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. Ex.P7 was also

produced by P.W.8, which is an alleged undertaking given by

A1 to take care of the deceased wife and to put up a separate

residence. Admittedly, Ex.P6 was not registered as a complaint

or any entry was made in the case diary. No documents are

produced to show that any counseling was held. There is no

endorsement on Ex.P6 by any police officer including P.W.8

acknowledging its receipt.

10. Exs.D1 to D6 are the proof of amounts being deposited

nearly to an extent of Rs.1.50 lakhs by A1 in favour of his

deceased wife. Ex.D7 is a gift settlement deed in favour of

deceased on 28.08.2003 whereby, a plot was gifted by P.W.2 to

the deceased. Further, it is also admitted that the source of

information regarding harassment was the deceased and there

was never any demand directly made either by P.W.1 or any of

the family members. Exs.D8 to D12 are Kisan Vikas Patras

taken in the name of the deceased by A1.

11. Ex.P6 cannot be believed for the reason of the said

complaint being produced for the first time before the court at

the fag end of trial. No reasons are given as to why Ex.P6 was

not handed over to the investigating officer and there is no

endorsement or acknowledgment or signature of any of the

police personnel of WPS to infer that the document was in fact

given by the deceased. Under Ex.P7, an alleged undertaking

given by A1, it is mentioned that he would put up a separate

residence. None of the witnesses speak about any direct

demand, but the deceased had informed about demand for

additional dowry. When Ex.P6 is eschewed from consideration,

except a bald and vague allegation of demand for additional

dowry, there is no other evidence to corroborate the allegations

of harassment. The contents of Ex.P6 are not spoken to by any

of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4. It is highly improbable that when

there are several instances narrated in Ex.P6 regarding the

presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, PWs.1 and 2 had never stated

anything that any event or events that are mentioned in Ex.P6.

In Ex.P6, it is stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the

appellants regarding the deceased being sent to Masqat.

According to Ex.P6, when P.W.2 went to the house of the

appellants, appellants allegedly accused the deceased of

stealing. Another incident regarding the deceased being

beaten and P.Ws.1 and 2 confronting the appellants is also

stated and several other allegations are made. However, not

a single incident is narrated by either P.W.1 or P.W.2 in 161

Cr.P.C. statement, complaint or evidence before Court which

creates a doubt regarding Ex.P6. It appears that Ex.P6 was

made up at subsequent stage and brought into existence.

12. In the said circumstances, the documents filed as

defence exhibits clearly indicate that several amounts were

credited to the account of the deceased by A1 and also fixed

deposits were taken by A1 would rule out the allegation of

constant demand for additional dowry, in the back ground of

demand being only made with the deceased and not with

P.Ws.1 and 2.

13. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal succeeds

and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled

against them.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the

appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 17.11.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.426 of 2012

Date: 17.11.2022.

kvs