THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384 of 2008 15-07-2014 BETWEEN:
Avula Hari Babu …..Appellant/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.384 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed in S.C.No.199 of 2006 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the deceased is the daughter of P.W.1. About four years prior to the death of the deceased, her marriage was performed with the accused. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.40,000/- towards dowry to the accused. The accused, who is working as a lorry driver having addicted to vices, started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by insisting for money for vices. When a daughter was burned to the deceased, the accused gave that daughter to his brother in adoption against the will of the deceased. Subsequently, another daughter was born to the deceased and she died when she was one and a half year old due to heart decease. The accused was also ill-treating the deceased on another ground that she was always giving birth to female children. Unable to bear the said harassment, vexed with her life, she committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial home. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, police registered the case against the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC and took up investigation. Charge sheet was filed after investigation.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and de facto complainant. She deposed that the accused addicted to drinking and did not treat the deceased properly even without coming to house. The accused has given his daughter in adoption to his brother against the will of the deceased. After the birth of second daughter, the accused increased his habit of drinking and was abusing and harassing the deceased saying that she was always giving birth female children. She further deposed that the deceased gave complaint in Nunna Police Station against the accused previously and that on the advice of elders, the complaint was withdrawn as the accused assured that he would lookafter his wife properly in future. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. He also deposed on the same lines of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the uncle of the deceased, who also deposed regarding the harassment of the accused towards the deceased. P.W.4, in whose house the deceased and the accused were the tenants, deposed that he does not know the happenings in the house of the accused and deceased as they used to raise the volume of the television. She further deposed that the accused informed her regarding the death of the deceased. P.W.5, who is also closely related to the deceased, deposed that as the deceased and accused were quarreling, they advised them to put up separate family from the parents of the accused and that one week after they put up separate family, he came to know about the death of the deceased. P.W.6 is the mediator for the observation of the scene of offence and for the inquest held on the body of the deceased by the M.R.O. P.W.7, who is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. P.W.8 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case and conducted investigation. P.W.9 is the Assistant Professor, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7, postmortem certificate.
The learned trial Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and on hearing oral submissions on both sides, acquitted the appellant/ accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
Heard and perused the entire material available on record.
The main allegation against the appellant herein is that he became addicted to vices and in that connection, the accused used to harass the deceased for money. He also abused and harassed the deceased, on her questioning the accused, in connection with the adoption of their daughter to his brother against the will of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W. 5, who are closely related to the deceased, deposed regarding the abuse and harassment by the accused towards the deceased. However, they did not specifically state any of the specific occurrence or incident alleged to be done by the accused towards the deceased. P.W.4, who is the landlady of the deceased and accused, deposed that she does not know the happenings in the house of the accused and the deceased. No other independent witness is examined in support of the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the only independent witness, which is of no help to the case of prosecution, as she did not state any of the harassment of the accused. Except the vague allegations made by P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.5, they did not speak any specific instance. Though, it is stated by P.W.1, that the deceased gave a complaint to Nunna Police Station on previous occasion, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the same by producing any of the document or examining any of the witnesses. Even though the trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC taking into consideration the second limb of 498-A IPC opining that due to harassment of the accused, the deceased was forced to commit suicide and hence, the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A.
This Court is of the view that the allegations made against the appellant/accused are vague in nature and not even a single witness deposed with regard to any specific incident or occurrence of abuse, harassment or ill-treatment by the accused towards the deceased. In the absence of specific instances of harassment or ill-treatment, the appellant/ accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
To attract an offence under Section 498-A IPC, there should be specific allegation of cruelty, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of a woman; or harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. In the case on hand, mere quarrel between the husband and wife, the accused and the deceased, in connection with the adoption of the daughter against the will of the deceased and also quarrel in connection with other issues are not sufficient enough to convict the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. There is nothing on record to show that the cruelty was meted out by the deceased, which is of such a nature to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has failed to show any specific instance regarding the harassment or cruelty by the accused towards the deceased and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
In the result, the Judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.07.2014 pln