CRLA/258/2007 of Inakoti Srinu (A-1) Vs State of A.P., on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/accusedagainst the Judgment dated 09.02.2007 passed in S.C.No.348 of 2006by the Hon’ble VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The deceased and the appellant No.1/A.1 are the wife andhusband respectively, and out of their wedlock, they begot one son.After the birth of the child, A.1 to A.4 have been harassing thedeceased for demanding additional dowry, and they used to beat theaccused. The accused sent the deceased out of the house to bringadditional dowry. A.1 further demanded motorcycle and then thedeceased complained the matter to the elders and on that, theyinterfered and admonished the accused and sent the deceased to thehouse of the accused. Even after intervention of elders, the accuseddid not mend their behaviour. In fact, they increased the harassmenttowards the deceased. Unbearable with the harassment meted out inthe hands of the accused, the deceased consumed pesticide poisonand died in the house of the accused. Basing on a complaint lodgedby the mother of the deceased, P.W.1, a case was registered againstthe appellants/A.1 to A.4 for the offences under Section 304B IPC andSection 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examinedand Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1to D.6.

P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and mother of the deceased.She deposed regarding the demand of additional dowry andharassment in connection with the demand of dowry by theappellants/A.1 to A.4 towards the deceased. P.W.2 and P.W.3, whoare the brothers of the deceased also deposed regarding the demandfor additional dowry and harassment in connection with the demand ofdowry by the accused. P.W.4 deposed that he acted as an elder tosettle the disputes between the deceased and the accused. P.W.5 inhis chief examination deposed that about 4 or 5 years prior to theoccurrence, the marriage of the deceased with A.1 was performed.However, in the cross-examination, he categorically deposed thatthree years after the marriage, the deceased begot a child. When thesaid is considered, it has to be concluded that the marriage of thedeceased with A.1 was celebrated more than seven years prior to thedate of the death of the deceased must be believed as true. P.Ws.6and 7 deposed that they do not know anything about harassment andthey have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 is theDoctor, who examined the deceased and found the deceased dead.P.W.9 is the Panchayat Secretary, who acted as mediator when thepolice observed the scene of offence and conducted inquest over thedead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is the Mandal Revenue Officer,who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 isthe Doctor who conducted Post Mortem Examination over the deadbody of the deceased and found injuries on the body of the deceased,and has given Post Mortem Certificate, marked as Ex.P.6. P.W.12 isthe person who registered the case against the appellants/A.1 to A.4and issued First Information Report, Ex.P.9. P.W.13 is the then SubDivisional Police Officer, who conducted investigation and filed chargesheet.

Arguments

The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence adducedby the prosecution and on hearing oral submissions, found theappellants/A.1 to A.4 guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A IPCand Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and accordingly convictedand sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period ofthree years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousandonly) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period ofthree months each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC andconvicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees onethousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for aperiod of three months each for the offence under Section 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal ispreferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.4.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learnedPublic Prosecutor, and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 to A.4 submits thatduring the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.2/Accused No.2died. Recording the said submission, the appeal against appellantNo.2/accused No.2 is dismissed as abated.

On reading the entire evidence, this Court is of the view thatnone of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution has deposed themethod and manner in which the appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 haveharassed the deceased and they have not deposed any specificinstance or any date, month or year, in which the appellants 2 to 4/A.2to A.4 have harassed the deceased and that harassment is with regardto demand of dowry. In the absence of any specific evidence that therewas any harassment by the appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4, moreparticularly the harassment in connection with the demand of dowry bythe appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 towards the deceased, the appellants 2to 4/A.2 to A.4 cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A

IPC. This Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to provethat the deceased committed suicide because of the harassment inconnection with demand of dowry by the appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4.Hence, the Judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencingthe appellants 2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 for the offence under Section 498-AIPC is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.

In the absence of any clinching evidence that there is anydemand of dowry by the appellants/A.1 to A.4 and in view of the abovediscussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed toprove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for want of dowry,and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against theappellants/A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A IPC against theappellant No.1/A.1 is concerned, this Court is of the view that the ill-treatment of the appellant No.1/A.1 towards the deceased and alsothe appellant No.1/A.1 has beat the deceased drove the deceased tocommit suicide and as such, the said act of the appellant No.1/A.1attracts an offence under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC. Hence,the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against theappellant No.1/A.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC isconfirmed.

At this stage, the learned counsel for appellant No.1/A.1confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence and submitsthat as the appellant No.1/A.1 has to look after his son, who is nowstudying Tenth Standard and also in view of the long lapse of time andas the appellant No.1/A.1 has suffered substantial period in prison,lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence of punishment.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe appellant No.1/A.1, this Court is inclined to take a lenient viewwhile imposing sentence of imprisonment.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing manner:

Conclusion

(i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated as againstappellant No.2/A.2 as the appellant No.2/A.2 died.

(ii) The conviction and sentence recorded by the Court belowagainst the appellants 1, 3 and 4/A.1, A.3 and A.4 for the offence underSection 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby set aside and theappellants 1, 3 and 4/A.1, A.3 and A.4 are acquitted of the saidcharges. The fine amount, if any, paid by them for the said offenceshall be refunded to them.

(iii) The conviction and sentence recorded by the Court belowagainst the appellants 3 and 4/A.3 and A.4 for the offences underSection 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arehereby set aside and the appellants 3 and 4/A.3 and A.4 are acquittedof the said charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by them shall berefunded to them.

. (iv) The conviction and sentence recorded by the Court belowagainst the appellant No.1/A.1 for the offence under Section 498-A IPCis confirmed. However, this Court taking a lenient view reduces thesentence of imprisonment to that of the period, which the appellantNo.1/A.1 has already undergone. The sentence of fine and defaultcondition imposed by the Court below stand confirmed.

The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in thisappeal, shall stand closed.

_____________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO