Auti Baswaraj, Mahabubnagar ... vs The State Of Ap. Rep.By Pp.Sho ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2576 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1031 OF 2011

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri G.Satyanarayana Yadav, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the

judgment dated 23.04.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.128 of 2009 on

the file of the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions

Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, whereby the learned Sessions

Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement dated

08.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Court

of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet.

3 The facts, in brief, as unfolded from the case of the

prosecution, are that the marriage of the first petitioner was

performed with the daughter of P.W.1 by name Gouramma

(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') three years prior to

her death. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/-

cash, three tulas of gold and other household articles worth

Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner. The deceased and the first

petitioner lead the marital life happily for seven months and

thereafter first petitioner and his relatives started harassing the

deceased for additional dowry. Out of their wedlock, the

deceased gave birth to a male child. Even thereafter the

petitioners continued their harassment. P.W.1, with a fond

hope that his daughter's life will be happy, gave further

amounts to the petitioners. After the deceased gave birth to

male child, the second petitioner herein went to the house of

P.W.1 to bring back the deceased to their house. At that time

also the second petitioner demanded P.W.1 for additional dowry.

The deceased went to the house of A.6 from where she

telephoned to her father P.W.1 asking him as to why he did not

send Rs.10,000/- as demanded to the petitioners and

complained that the petitioners are harassing her for that

amount. While so, on 03.11.2005 at 9.00 a.m. the deceased

went to caster land of the village and there consumed pesticide

poison and committed suicide. P.W.6 noticed the deceased

struggling for life and informed the same to the petitioners.

Thereupon, the petitioners shifted the deceased to the hospital

of P.W.12 where she was declared as brought dead. Basing on

the above factual background, the criminal law was set into

motion and a case in Cr.No.47 of 2005 for the offence under

Section 304-B IPC. After completing the procedure laid down by

law, the police filed the charge sheet against six accused

including the petitioners herein being A.1 and A.2.

4 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. On behalf of the

defence, though no oral evidence was adduced, some medical

prescriptions were marked in the form of Exs.D.1 to D.6.

5 After analysing the entire material available on record, the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, found the

accused Nos.3 to 6 not guilty of the offence under Section 304-

B IPC, however found the petitioners herein who are A.1 and

A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC

and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay fine

of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 08.10.2009

passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners (A.1 and A.2)

preferred Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2009 on the file of the

Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at

Mahabubnagar, and the learned appellate court by

reappreciating the entire evidence available on record, held that

the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners for the

charged offence and accordingly dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment of the learned trial Court. As stated

supra, aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present criminal

revision case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. questioning

the legality of the said judgment.

6 The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents of the

deceased is consistent with the case of the prosecution. Their

evidence, in unequivocal terms, goes to show the harassment

meted out by the petitioners herein towards the deceased for

additional dowry. P.W.1 explained the manner in which he had

to meet the illegal demands of the petitioners. It is the

evidence of P.W.1 that on coming to know about the death of

the deceased he went to the house of the petitioners and found

the dead body of the deceased at which time none of the

accused was present. P.W.2's evidence further goes to show

that the deceased used to inform to her that the first petitioner

used to burn her with cigarette. P.Ws.1 and 2 though admitted

that there was a panchayat after the death of the deceased but

they denied the suggestion that as the accused refused to give

Rs.2.00 lakhs, they foisted the false case. The evidence of P.W.4

who is the brother of the deceased also deposed about the

harassment meted out by the petitioners. P.Ws.5 to 10 and 13

deposed about the giving of dowry and performance of marriage

of the deceased with the first petitioner and also about the

harassment. The case of the defence was that due to the

unbearable stomach ache, the deceased consumed poison which

appears to be improbable and unbelievable.

7 The very crucial piece of evidence to be noted from the

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was that one day before her death,

the deceased asked P.W.1 about the demand of the accused for

additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and that they accused are

harassing her on that ground. This itself is sufficient to draw an

inference / presumption that the accused have harassed the

deceased for additional dowry and that not being able to bear

with the such harassment the deceased committed suicide.

Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

113 B. Presumption as to dowry death. -- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

8 Section 304-B of IPC reads as follows:

Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

9 In the light of the above two sections, this court has no

other option but to draw an inference that since the death of the

deceased was within seven years from the marriage between

the deceased and the first petitioner and soon before her death

the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the petitioners have

committed the charged offence. The defence could not rebut the

presumption under the above section of law. Hence it can

safely be said that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

petitioners for the offence under Section 304-B IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt.

10 The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of

this Court to the principle laid down in a judgment of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.A.No.327 of 2003

dated 30.06.2005 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1 But the

said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case since

AIR 2015 SC 2081

there was a finding in that case that there was no harassment

on account of demand of dowry immediately prior to the death.

Here in the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would

amply goes to show that the deceased informed them about the

harassment by the petitioners for additional dowry one day prior

to her death.

11 Similarly, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner in K.Amarnath Vs. State 2 and Dayyala

Bixapathi Vs. State of A.P. 3 also have no application to the

facts of the present case since the death of the deceased in

those cases was suspected to be unnatural. Here in the instant

case, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide

which is an unnatural and that death took place within seven

years of the marriage and that there was lot of evidence

available on record to show that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty by the petitioners for additional dowry.

12 For the foregoing discussion, this criminal revision case is

devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

2007 LawSuit (AP) 523

2005 SCC OnLine AP 1245

13 However, coming to the quantum of sentence, the courts

below have imposed sentence of seven years rigorous

imprisonment against the petitioners. But, as seen from the

record, the offence is of the year 2005 and the petitioners have

been roaming around the courts for all these years. Keeping in

view of the mental agony and the trauma faced by the

petitioners, this court is inclined to take a lenient view insofar as

the sentence of imprisonment is concerned.

14 Accordingly, the period of seven years rigorous

imprisonment imposed by both the courts below against the

petitioners is reduced to simple imprisonment for two years.

15 Except the above modification in respect of the period of

sentence, this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is

dismissed.

16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal

petition shall also stand dismissed.

-------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date:21.09.2023 Kvsn