Adimulapu Vikram, Karimnagar And 2 ... vs P.P., Hyd
2025 Latest Caselaw 818 Tel

Telangana High Court

Adimulapu Vikram, Karimnagar And 2 ... vs P.P., Hyd on 6 January, 2025

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.191 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3

questioning the conviction under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for

short I.P.C) sentencing them to undergo 10 years of imprisonment.

2. Pending the appeal, accused No.2 expired. Accordingly, the appeal

stands abated against accused No.2.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.11.2011 the

appellant/accused No.1 was married to the daughter of PW-1. According to

PW-1 at the time of marriage Rs.5,00,000/- cash, gold ornaments worth

Rs.1,00,000/- and house-hold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given as

dowry.

4. After the marriage the deceased started living with accused Nos.1 to

3 at Karimnagar. They were happy for a period of 15 days, thereafter

appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing the deceased for bringing

additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. The harassment was informed by the

deceased to PW-1, then, PW-1 requested accused Nos.1 to 3 not to ill-treat

his daughter. However, the harassment continued for additional dowry. On

04.01.2012 accused No.1 took the deceased to the house of PW-1 and

dropped her saying that the demand of Rs.3,00,000/- has to be met for

continuing to lead conjugal life. On 05.01.2012 at 8:30 A.M. the deceased

went into her room, closed the doors and hanged herself with her chunni.

PW-1 went to the police station and lodged written complaint which is Ex-

P1.

5. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter,

inquest proceedings were also completed and the body was sent for

postmortem examination.

6. The police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against

accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Section 304-B of I.P.C.

7. The learned Sessions Judge having framed charge for the said

offence, examined the witnesses cited by the prosecution who are PWs-1 to

11 and also marked Ex-P1 to P8 documents.

8. The learned Sessions Judge found that the death happened within

two months of marriage and there is a specific allegation for demand of

additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, accordingly, convicted the appellants

sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

submits that the incident took place within two months from the date of

marriage and the entire evidence that was brought on record is only

hearsay, since the deceased informed PW-1 and PW-3. It appears that the

deceased was not interested in the marriage with A.1 and PW-1 and PW-3

forcibly got her married to accused No.1 on the ground that accused No.1

would get a job in police department on compassionate grounds. He further

submits that in the cross examination of PW-3 it is stated that one month

prior to the marriage, the accused came to them with a marriage proposal,

however, it is important to note that father of accused No.1 died on

09.08.2011 and normally marriages will not be performed within one year

after the death of the father.

10. Learned Senior counsel further contended that there is no specific

allegation against the accused with regard to harassment for additional

dowry but vague and omnibus allegations were made. With regard to

accused No.3, he is younger brother of accused No.1 and he has nothing to

do with the marital life of accused No.1. A.3 had just completed

intermediate at the time of incident. According to PW-1, panchayat will be

held regarding disputes between husband and wife in their community, but

in the present case, no panchayat was held. PW-1 in his cross examination

has stated that he knew the father of accused No.1 since 25 years. He

further contended that after the registration of the crime, accused No.1

could not get job on compassionate grounds. PW-2 categorically states that

police came to the house of PW-1 and PW-3 after fifteen minutes of the

incident. But, however, no report was given at that time. The F.I.R. was

registered only after PW-1 went to the police station and gave a report to

PW-11 at 10:30 A.M. Therefore, there is every possibility of the report

being given implicating the accused after due deliberations. Insofar as

accused No.1 is concerned, there is no material to attract Section 304-B

IPC as the demand of additional dowry was not proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

11. The learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the situation of dowry

death reversed the conviction giving benefit of doubt on the ground that the

statements of the victim woman and brother did not disclose regarding

cruelty and harassment prior to the death.

12. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Chabi Karmakar v. The State of West Bengal. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that soon before death, there was no force or

compelling reasons for the deceased to commit suicide, in the said

circumstances, benefit of doubt was extended.

13. In the case of Chabi Karmakar v. The State of West Bengal, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

In paragraph 9 of Rajinder Singh (Supra), this Court had discussed the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC as follows:

"9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients and they are said to be:

a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;

b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry."

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

death occurred within two months of the marriage and presumption arises

under Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act. No married woman would

commit suicide within two months unless there was constant harassment

meted out by the accused.

15. An unfortunate incident of the deceased committing suicide within

two months has happened. The allegation is that there was a demand for

Rs.3,00,000/-. Even the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4 show that the demand

of Rs.3,00,000/- was made. The case is that the deceased was ill-treated by

accused Nos.1 to 3. However, what was the ill-treatment that was meted

out by the appellant/accused is not specified. Though allegation of

ill-treating the deceased for Rs.3,00,000/- and thereafter leaving the

deceased in the house of PW-1 on 04.01.2012 is the case of the

prosecution, however, neither PW-1 or PW-3 stated about any additional

demand of dowry that was made by the accused. The information regarding

the additional dowry was through the deceased. However, PW-1, PW-3 and

PW-4 stated that they requested the appellant/accused not to harass the

deceased.

16. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Durga Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh and in the case of

Chabi Karmakar v. The State of West Bengal, since the allegation of

harassment in the present case is vague and omnibus and nothing specific is

stated against either husband or the accused No.3 who is the younger

brother of the husband, it creates any amount of doubt. Accused No.3 was

studying at that relevant time.

17. In view of the general allegations made by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4,

the conviction cannot be maintained insofar as accused No.3 is concerned.

18. Though the alleged harassment pursuant to the demand of

Rs.3,00,000/- was made, however, nothing specific is stated by any of the

witnesses as already discussed above.

19. The fact remains that there was a demand and the deceased was left

at her parents' house. Accordingly, since the prosecution has failed to

prove that there was ill-treatment pursuant to the alleged demand, offence

under Section 304-B of IPC is not made out. However, accused No.1 is

liable under Section 498-A of IPC.

20. Though no separate charge was framed under Section 498-A of IPC,

however the charge framed under Section 304-B of IPC reflects that there

was harassment for dowry and there was a demand for additional dowry

and unable to bear that alleged harassment, the deceased committed

suicide. The said charge framed under Section 304-B of IPC reflects

cruelty as such no separate charge under Section 498A needs to be framed.

Accused No.1 is convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Since accused No.1 is on

bail, he shall be summoned by the trial court and on such surrender; the

trial court shall send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the

sentence.

21. In view of the above, the instant appeal stands partly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:06.01.2025 aqs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.191 OF 2016

Dt. 06.01.2025 aqs