CRLRC/1525/2005 of Kotla Malla Reddy, Vs State of AP., on 28 December 2012

JUDGMENT

This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 16.05.2005, passed by the learned VI Additional SessionsJudge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, inCrl.A.No.130 of 2004, wherein the conviction and sentenceimposed against the petitioner/A1 by the learned AssistantSessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District vide judgmentdated 05.11.2004 in S.C.No.837 of 2002, was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows;s On 21.04.2000, the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, by nameAnitha, was given in marriage to A1 and at the time of marriage,P.W.1 gave a cash of Rs.1 lakh, a scooter and some householdarticles to A1 towards dowry. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. For a period of three months, Anitha was treated well, butthereafter A1 to A3 started harassing her by demanding additionaldowry from her parents and on one occasion, P.W.1 gave a sumof Rs.5,000/-to A1. In spite of the same, the accused continuedthe harassment. Due to unbearable harassment, Anitha pouredkerosene on her body and set herself ablaze and died on the spoton 30.09.2000 at about 10.00 to 11.00 A.M. On informationthrough phone, P.Ws.1 to 4 went to the house of the accused andsaw the dead body in the house. On a report given by P.W.1, acase in Cr.No.64 of 2000 under Section 304-B IPC was registeredagainst A1 to A3. After recording the statements of witnesses concerned and after completion of investigation, the police filed thecharge sheet.

3. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence wasadduced on behalf of the defence, but Exs.D1 to D.3 were marked.

4. During the pendency of the case, A2 died and the caseagainst him was abated. On appreciation of both oral anddocumentary evidence, the trial Court found A3 not guilty of thecharge under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly, acquitted herfrom the said charge; and found A1 guilty of the charge underSection 304-B IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fineof Rs.10,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for oneyear. Aggrieved by the same, A1 filed Crl.A.No.130 of 2004 beforethe VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District,Vikarabad. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciation ofthe entire evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the convictionand sentence imposed by the trial Court. Questioning the saidjudgment, the petitioner/A1 filed the present revision.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Anitha. P.Ws.3and 4 are their relations, P.W.5 is a panch witness and P.W.6 isthe Investigating Officer. The entire case of the prosecution isbased on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. In their evidence, theystated that about 2 or 3 months after the marriage, A1 and the deceased Anitha lived happily and thereafter, A1 started harassingher mentally and physically to get additional dowry from herparents, and at once, P.W.1 gave a sum of Rs.5,000/-and evenafter, A1 did not satisfy and continued the harassment. Theydeposed that in a panchayat conducted in the presence ofSarpanch, VAO and other elders of Rudraram village, A1 promisedto treat his wife well and even after, he continued the harassment.The prosecution did not examine those elders, who convened thepanchayat. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that when his wife went tothe house of A1 for bringing their daughter, A1 beat his daughteron the ground of non-payment of dowry demanded by him,whereas P.W.2 stated in her evidence that the accused assaultedthe deceased in a drunken state, but she does not know thereason for such assault. Thus, there is some contradictory in theirevidence as to the cause of assault made by A1 on the deceased.

7. So far as the dowry death is concerned, there is noevidence to show that soon before her death, Anitha wassubjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by A1 andin the absence of positive evidence in proof of cruel treatment orharassment soon before her death, the offence under Section 304-B IPC does not stand proved. The prosecution has not producedany medical evidence. Thus, in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of offenceunder Section 304-B IPC and therefore, the conviction andsentence imposed against the petitioner/A1 for the offence underSection 304-B IPC are set aside and A1 is acquitted for the saidoffence. The fine amount, if any paid under this count, shall be refunded to A1. However, it has come in the evidence of PWs.1and 2 that A1 harassed the deceased by demanding additionaldowry and so also PWs.3 and 4, the brothers of the deceased,also stated about the panchayat conducted for such harassmentmade by A1 as such the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC wouldbe attracted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that thepetitioner/A1 is found guilty of the charge under Section 498-A IPCand accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-beforethe trial Court on or before 28.02.2013 in default to undergo simpleimprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-AIPC. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that thepetitioner/A1 has already undergone imprisonment for a period ofnine months, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for theoffence under Section 498-A IPC can be construed as a sentenceof imprisonment under this head.

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

28[th] December, 2012sj

_________________

RAJA ELANGO, J