Telangana High Court
Vadai Bikaru Bhikku vs The State Of A.P. on 17 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1052 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A1 aggrieved
by the conviction recorded by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad, in S.C.No.19 of 2011, dated
06.09.2011, convicting the appellant/A1 for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of eight years.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the daughter of
PW2 was married two years prior to her death to the appellant. At
the time of marriage Rs.30,000/- and half tula gold was given. The
appellant was not doing any work and he was an alcoholic. The
appellant was also having illicit relation with acquitted accused
No.3. Though, 'panchayat' was held, the appellant did not change
his attitude and demanded dowry of Rs.20,000/-. One year after
'panchayat' was held, it was informed that the deceased was found
dead on the railway track. PW2 lodged a police complaint Ex.P1.
4. On the basis of investigation, police filed charge sheet
against this appellant and two others for the offence under Section
304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs.1 to 10
and marking Exs.P1 to P17 and Exs.D1 to D3 found that this
appellant was guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, whereas
the other accused were acquitted.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that
nowhere it is mentioned that there was any kind of demand for
dowry. In fact, the deceased died in accident which was stated by
PWs.1 and PW10. Even according to admission of PW2, he stated
regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- for the first time during the
course of his examination before the Court.
7. PW2 who is the father gave Ex.P1 in writing. However, he
states that he is illiterate and that the complaint-Ex.P1 was
drafted by Kagaznagar Police. PW2 further admitted that 3 days
after Rakhi Pournami festival, the appellant went to his house to
take his daughter and appellant was tied to the cot by the
relatives of PW2 as he was fully drunk. PW2 and his relatives
demanded A1 to give divorce to the deceased, but, appellant/A1
refused. He was kept in the house, tied to the cot for three days
and was beaten. Further, PW2 admitted that the deceased died
due to accident and the relevant para reads as follows;
"...........I for the first time I am deposing about the
accused demanding balance amount of Rs.20,000/-.
...................My daughter died due to accident. It is
true that we filed this case as A1 filed criminal case
against my sons."
8. Even according to Investigating Officer-PW10, the death of
the deceased was on account of accident.
9. To attract an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian
Penal Code, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the death
occurred within seven years of the marriage and such death was
unnatural death and thirdly, the deceased was subjected to
cruelty for demand of dowry.
10. In the present case, the death of the deceased occurred
within seven years, but the death was accidental. Demand of
dowry of Rs.20,000/- was stated by PW2, for the first time, during
the course of his examination in the Court. Even according to
PW2, such demand for dowry was one year prior to the death.
Even assuming that there was a demand, the said demand is too
remote. The case appears to have been made up for the reason of
the death of the deceased. It is natural that the close relatives of
the deceased tend to exaggerate and also implicate the husband in
a case. Such bald and vague allegations of demand for dowry
which was made for the first time in the Court, will not be
sufficient to convict the appellant for the said offences under
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
appellant/A1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code. The conviction recorded by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad, against
the appellant/A1 in S.C.No.19 of 2011, dated 06.09.2011, is
hereby set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds
shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.:17.11.2022
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052 OF 2011
Dt. 17.11.2022
tk
