Telangana High Court
Zebunnisa, Nalgonda Dt., vs State Of Ap.,Thr Pp., High Court., on 4 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 and107 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 is filed by A2 and Criminal
Appeal No.91 of 2013 is filed by A1 against judgment in S.C.No.107
of 2010 dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was married to
the deceased on 29.04.2007. The deceased was daughter of P.Ws.1
and 2. At the time of marriage, Rs.25,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold
and 25 tulas of silver and other household articles were given. After
the marriage, A1 and the deceased lived happily for one month.
However, A1, A2 and also A3 and A4 (acquitted accused) were
harassing for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-.
3. A female child was born to the deceased. The specific incident,
according to the prosecution is that on 05.06.2009, the deceased
called P.Ws.1 and 2 stating that she was being beaten for the
purpose of additional dowry and asked them to come to their house.
Then, P.W.1 and her son/P.W.3 went to the house of the appellant.
There, A1 beat P.W.1, P.W.3 and sent the deceased out of the
house. The neighbours interfered and snatched the stick from the
hands of A1. At that point of time, the deceased was also asked to
leave the house and P.Ws.1 and 3 have taken the deceased to their
house. On 08.06.2009, the deceased called A1 and he threatened
that he is going to marry his uncle's daughter for not fulfilling the
demand for additional dowry. On account of the said threat,
deceased consumed poison. Within ten minutes of the incident, she
was taken to the hospital, but the deceased died. On the very same
day, i.e., 08.06.2009, complaint was filed with police, which is
Ex.P1.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed, the police investigated the
case and filed charge sheet under Section 304-B IPC against A1 to
A4.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to
14 and considering the documents Exs.P1 to P11 marked on behalf
of the prosecution, found favour with the allegations against the
appellants 1 and 2 and convicted A1 and A2. However, benefit of
doubt was extended to A3 and A4.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that omnibus allegations are leveled against appellants regarding
beating. If at all there was constant fight and beating for the past
one year, complaint would have been lodged or any panchayat
would have been held, but no such steps were taken. Further, as
seen from the post-mortem examination report, there are no
external injuries found on the deceased. If at all there was beating
by A1 with the stick, injuries would have been found on the body of
the deceased. Learned counsel lastly submitted that at most an
offence of cruelty may be made out and no offence punishable
under Section 304-B of IPC is made out since the allegations of
demand of Rs.50,000/- is not proximate to the suicide. The
allegation is that harassment was going on for one year, as such,
the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are not attracted.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would
submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed specifically regarding demand
made by the appellants for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-.
Further, failure to pay the said amount, A1 had threatened that he
was going to marry his uncle's daughter.
8. P.Ws.1 and 3 have specifically stated that there was demand
for Rs.50,000/- and for the said reason an altercation on
05.06.2009, three days before deceased committing suicide. On the
said date, the incident happened in the house of the appellant.
Since demand for additional dowry was not made, it is alleged that
A1 beat P.Ws.1 and 3 with stick and also threw the deceased out of
the house. Though, it is stated by P.W.1 that they have lodged a
police complaint on 05.06.2009, which is on the date of incident, no
FIR was registered on the said date.
9. However, the fact remains that there was a demand for
Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry, which was three days prior
to the deceased committing suicide. In the said circumstances, it is
clear that on account of demand made for additional dowry and
threat of A1 that he was going to marry another woman for not
fulfilling the demand, unable to bear the said harassment, the
deceased committed suicide.
10. However, insofar as A2, the mother of A1 is concerned, it is
alleged that she had supported A1. There is no specific allegation
that on 05.06.2009 she has assaulted P.Ws.1 and 3 or the
deceased. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 304-
B IPC is confirmed against A1. However, no offence under Section
304-B IPC is made out against A2. But there is consistent evidence
regarding harassment for additional dowry and that over a period of
year A2 supported A1. The conviction against A2 under Section
304-B of IPC is set aside and she is convicted for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC. Though, no charge is framed under Section 498-
A IPC, however, the contents of the charge framed under Section
304-B IPC clearly indicate that A2 was harassing the deceased.
Even in the absence of specific charge being framed under Section
498-A IPC, since charge under Section 304-B IPC satisfies
ingredients of Section 498-A IPC for harassment, conviction can as
well be recorded. Accordingly, A2 is convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under
Section 498-A IPC and conviction under Section 304-B of IPC is set
aside as against A2.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2013 is dismissed and
Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 is partly allowed. Since, both the
appellants are on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause their
appearance and send them to prison to serve out remaining period
of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.07.2024
kvs
