THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.613 of 2014 24.11.2014 BETWEEN:
G.Krishna Reddy …..Appellant/de facto complainant AND Kotla Sumitra And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.613 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/de facto complainant (P.W.1) against the Judgment dated 13.02.2014 passed in S.C.No.82 of 2011 by the Hon’ble III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the trial Court, is as follows:
That the marriage between A.3 and the deceased Swapna was performed in the year 2005. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold were given towards dowry. After marriage, the deceased Swapna joined the company of A3 at Hyderabad. A1 who is the mother of A3 used to stay along with them. A.2 and A.4 are the sisters of A.3, A.5 and A.6 are the husbands of A.2 and A.4 respectively. They used to visit the house of A.3. A.3 and deceased lived happily for some time, thereafter A.1 to A.6 used to harass the deceased Swapna for additional dowry. The deceased was blessed with one daughter who is aged 3 years and one son aged 1 ½ year. Ultimately due to both mental and physical harassment of the accused, on 24.09.2009 in the evening hours, the deceased killed her two children by means of smothering and throttling and later she committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan with the help of sari in her bed room. On coming to know the same, in the evening hours, P.W.1 who is father of the deceased and the family members of P.W.1 went to the house of A.3 and saw the situation. The police also came to the spot. In the same night, P.W.1 gave complaint along with a suicide note to the police. P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police registered the case. Later, P.W.18, the Assistant Commissioner of Police took up investigation, went to the scene of offence, prepared observation report in the presence of P.W.12 and other witnesses and seized M.O.1. P.W.13, the Deputy Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, because the death of the deceased is within seven years from the date of marriage. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of two children. P.W.15, the Doctor conducted autopsy over the dead bodies and gave opinion. During the course of investigation, P.W.18 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 11 and other witnesses. P.W.18 arrested A.1 to A.4 and produced them before the Magistrate concerned. A.5 and A.6 obtained anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.
No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Swapna, who gave complaint, Ex.P.2 to the police. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the co-brother of the P.W.1. P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.1. P.W.6 is the son-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.7 is the son-in-law of P.W.1, who scribed Ex.P.2, complaint. P.W.8 is the son- in-law of P.W.1. P.Ws.9 to 11 are co-employees of A.3. P.W.12 is the panch witness for observation of scene of offence and seizure. P.W.13 is the Deputy Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Swapna. P.W.14 is the Panch witness for inquest over the dead bodies. P.W.15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies. P.W.16 is the Sub Inspector who conducted inquest over the dead bodies of two children. P.W.17 is the Sub Inspector of Police who Even though the prosecution ventured to prove the handwriting in the suicide note as that of the deceased, they could not able to prove the same since the handwritings of the deceased are not tallied or no expert opinion was obtained.
According to P.W.1, the writing on the wall with kum-kum, written by the deceased, is as follows.
NAA ATHMA HATYA-KU KARANAMU, MAA ATHAMMA AND CHINNA VADINA, BHARTHA VEDINCHE VAADU.
But, it is also not proved by the prosecution that it is written by the deceased herself.
Even admitting that the suicide note is written by the deceased, it is stated in the suicide note that she could not bear the harassment of mother-in-law and younger sister- in-law, but curiously the investigation agency charged the entire family members of the husband of the deceased.
In the suicide note, the word ‘harassment’ is used, but the harassment should be explained by way of specific acts and circumstances which necessitated the person to feel that it is the particular act that meted out in the hands of the accused. The suicide note does not disclose any such incidence or instance like assault or not-providing food or confinement, physical assault or verbal abuse by the accused concerned. In the absence of any such overt acts, mere using the word ‘harassment’ itself is not enough to come to a conclusion that the deceased was subjected to such a cruelty, which is of such a nature for her to commit suicide.
As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, even though they deposed that the deceased informed them that she was harassed for additional dowry, nowhere they stated the manner in which she was subjected to harassment or cruelty.
Mere death of a person within seven years of marriage will not attract an offence under Section 304-B IPC and the Court cannot invoke the presumption under Section 113-B IPC unless and otherwise the following ingredients are proved.
(a) That death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances;
(b) Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage;
(c) The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband;
(d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry ; and
(e) To such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.
In the present case, the undisputed facts are that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and that the death is occurred within seven years of the marriage and that these ingredients have been proved by the prosecution. But at the same time, the other ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such harassment was in connection with demand of dowry, that too soon before her death have not been proved by the prosecution to convict the accused for an offence under Section 304-B IPC.
Even though P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that on the date of suicide, the deceased informed that she was subjected to harassment, but they have not stated the manner in which she was subjected to such harassment. The telephone conversation as deposed by P.Ws.2 and 3 creates a doubt in the mind of the Court, since the alleged fact of telephonic information by the deceased regarding the harassment is not stated before the Panchayatdars, who were present during the course of inquest. In view of the above mitigating circumstances, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge.
Normally, in appeal against the Judgment of acquittal, unless and otherwise the entire evidence clinchingly prove the guilt of the accused, this Court will not interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court. In the present case, considering the findings recorded by the trial Court and the evidence adduced on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 24.11.2014 pln