THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1232 of 2014
04-12-2014
BETWEEN:
Smt Kallem Sathavva …..Appellant/de facto complainant AND Ittireddi Jaipal Reddy And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1232 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 27.10.2010 passed in S.C.No.320 of 2008 by the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Karimnagar, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
The gravamen of the charge against the accused are that on 27-01-2007 at 2.15 PM. PW.1 filed a complaint stating that on 20-05-2006 his daughter Sunitha was given marriage to Ittireddy Jayapal Reddy of Bejjanki by giving Rs.4 lakhs, 12 tolas of gold and other household articles, after the marriage her daughter was studying M.C.A. final year. It was alleged that her son-in-law used to harass Sunitha by suspecting her fidelity since four days of the marriage her daughter’s mother-in-law, father-in-law, younger brother-in-law Jayasimha Reddy and Sister-in-law Jala Sri and Jaya Sri used to harass her daughter to bring additional dowry by disposing of land and mini rice mill of her parents. On 26-1-2007 while her younger sister son (cousin of deceased) was talking to her son-in-law recorded the speech in the cell phone and beat alleging that she has illicit intimacy with him and her in-laws also supported him. They also alleging that she got pregnancy through some body and on 27-1-2007 she consumed poison and came to Ragampet village in an auto rickshaw with a poison bottle in hand. When questioned she revealed the harassment by her husband and in-laws and that she was admitted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar where she died after half an hour. PW.17 S.I of Police registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2007 u/s 304-B IPC and issued FIR and sent requisition to PW.15, Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest and doctor held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW.16, Doctor, opined that the death due to “Endowsalfan, an insecticide poison”. During the course of investigation, PW.18, S.D.P.O., Karimnagar, examined the witnesses and arrested A.1 to A.3 on 12-2-2007, after completion of investigation S.D.P.O filed charge sheet against the accused and alleging that A.1 to A.3 harassed the daughter of PW.1 mentally and physically, subjected her to cruelty for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and drove her to commit suicide by consuming pesticide poison, thereby liable for punishment u/s 304-B IPC.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.21 were marked on behalf of the accused.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 18, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows.
PW.1 K.Satavva, speaks that at that time of performing Sunitha’s marriage with A.1, she paid Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry and 2 tolas of golden jewellery. She alleges that after marriage, Sunitha was subjected to harassment by her husband A.1, her parents in-laws A.2 and A.3 to bring additional dowry. She also says that A.1 was suspecting the character of Sunitha even when her younger sister son Kishore visited her marital home. She says that A.1 to A.3 demanded to pay additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. She says that the marriage of younger brother of A.1 was performed where his in-laws paid a dowry Rs.6,00,000/- and citing the said payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. A.1 to A.3 demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. She says that her daughter said to her that she was put to harassment and her husband suspected the pregnancy and therefore she felt why should she live and she consumed pesticide poison. She says that they have no capacity to pay the additional dowry amount demanded. She alleges that A.1 who is husband of her daughter mother of A.1 and father of A.1 are the responsible for the death of her daughter, she says that she gave complaint to police.
PW.2 K.Chandra Reddy who is husband of PW.1 says that he paid Rs.4,00,000/-dowry and given 12 tolas of golden jewelry and other house hold articles by performing marriage of her daughter with A.1. He says that his daughter was facing trouble at marital home and he requested A.1 to behave good and even touched feet of A.1 and his daughter and requested to lead happily but again her daughter telephoned that she was being harassed. Subsequently her daughter telephoned to him say her husband harassed her, stating she got pregnancy through some body, he says that which he was on the way to bazaar his wife PW.1 called phone and informed that Sunitha consumed poison and she is taking her to hospital by the time he reached hospital PW.1 has already given the complaint to the police.
PW3 K.Chokka Reddy who is younger brother of PW.2 he says that it was agreed for dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and 12 tolas of gold, at the time of varapooja and has paid Rs.1,00,000/-as part of the dowry. He says that about one month after the marriage whenever Sunitha was visiting her parents house she informed that she was being subjected to harassment and also her character is being suspected, he says that he saw Sunitha in Hospital where she died undergoing treatment. He alleges A.1 to A.3 are responsible for death of Sunitha.
PW.4 B.Kavitha who is daughter of PWs.1 and 2 and sister of deceased and she says that the marriage of Sunitha was performed with A.1 and her father paid Rs.4,00,000/- before the date of marriage and on the day of marriage he has given all the kitchen articles, she says that A.1 used to suspect the character of Sunitha. She also says that the marriage of younger brother of A.1 was performed and dowry was Rs.6,00,000/- was given, therefore her sister was being harassed citing A.1’s brother got Rs.6,00,000/- as dowry and therefore he shall pay difference amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dowry. She says that during lunch hours her husband informed that he received phone call that Sunitha had consumed poison and brought to Government Hospital, Karimnagar.
P.W.5, B.Raji Reddy who is the son-in-law of P.W.3 speaks that Sunitha is youngest sister of his wife, he says that Rs.4,00,000/- and 12 tolas of gold given dowry her marriage, he says that A.1 was suspecting her character and later Sunitha informed that younger brother of A.1 got Rs.6,00,000/- dowry and A.1 was harassing her that he shall be paid difference of Rs.2,00,000/-
P.W.6 D.Rajamma says that Sunitha daughter of P.W.2 died 2 years back and Sunitha came in an auto and she stood in front of her parents house and was weeping, seeing of it, they all rushed there and she said she has no desire to live and she consumed poison.
P.W.7, K.Chukka Reddy also speaks that after some discussion A.2 and A.3 asked for more amount dowry and it was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- and 12 tolas of gold, she says that Sunitha came to his house and said that her husband is suspecting her character again after some time Sunitha came to his house and said that she was being harassed again by A.1 in the same manner. On which he went to the house of A.1 where A.2 and A.3 were present and they stated their younger son got Rs.6,00,000/- dowry and if they pay difference dowry, there would not be any problem to Sunitha. Three or four months thereafter Sunitha committed suicide.
PW.8 D.Jaya and P.W.9 P Devender Reddy turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and whereby nothing was elicited from their cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
P.W. 10 E.Ravindra Chary, photographer says that at the request of police officer he has taken photos of dead body 3 photos with negatives as under Ex.P.4.
P.W.11 A.Naveen says that he signed on inquest panchanama conducted by Mandal Revenue Officer.
P.W. 12 Dr. Shouraiah says that on 27.1.2007 one Sunitha was admitted and while giving treatment she died.
P.W.13 K.Nagaraju says that on 27.1.2007 Sunitha came in an auto at the rice mill, she got down from the auto rickshaw and sweepingly said that her husband beat her on the previous day and also said she was carrying and her mother-in-law and father-in-law harassed for additional dowry, as such she has taken poison at the house of her husband.
P.W.14 M. Ganga Reddy says that police obtained his signature on crime detail form as under Ex.P.6.
P.W.15 G.V.Shyam Prasad Lal says that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased as under Ex.P.5.
P.W.16 Dr. E.Narender Rao says that he conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased as under Ex.P.7 P.M.E. report and found the case of death due to Endosulphon poison.
P.W.17 A.Srinivas Rao, S.I. of Police says that on 27.1.2007 at 2.15 P.M. he received complaint from P.W.1, basing upon which he registered a case in Cr.No.20/07 u/s 304-B IPC and issued Ex.P.10 FIR. He says that he gave requisition to M.R.O. to conduct inquest and he visited Government Hospital, Karimnagar and got photographs of the deceased with the help of P.W.10. He says that he visited scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators Ganga Reddy PW.14 and Enugu Ravinder and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence.
P.W.18, V.Ranga Rao, Addl.S.P., says that on 29.1.2007 he received copy of FIR and visited the scene of offence and examined PWs.1 to 9 and PW.13, he says that Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body. Doctor conducted postmortem, he also says that he arrested the accused A.1 to A.3 on 12.3.2007 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 304-B IPC.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, having found A.1 to A.3 not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, acquitted them of the said charge. While acquitting the accused, the trial Court scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as follows.
As seen from the record PW.1 who is the complainant stated in his cross examination that Sunitha was aged 22 years when her mother took place with A.1. She says that she cannot tell how many days and months they have sold mango garden prior to the marriage of their daughter. She says that her daughter came directly to her house in the auto rickshaw and got down and said pesticide poison tin in her bag and she brought. She says that she informed the Doctor in Government Hospital, Karimnagar about her daughter consuming poison and the said doctor advised her to take her to private nursing home and before they could shift Sunitha died. She says that by the time her husband came Ex.P.1 complaint was already written and given to police, she says that her husband brother Chokka Reddy who is a teacher scribed the contents of Ex.P.1. She admitted that she mentioned in Ex.P.1 that she brought her daughter in an auto to Government Hospital, Karimnagar and she has not mentioned in complaint that her daughter used to inform about the harassment through phone.
PW.2 K. Chandra Reddy stated in his cross examination that he know accused and their family since the sister of A.2 was given in marriage in Vinjapalli where the sister of his mother-in-law reside. He says that he has not referred the matter to any elders and got conducted any panchayath, he says that he reached hospital at 5.00 p.m. on receipt of information from his wife. By the time he reached the hospital the inquest was over. He denied suggestion that his daughter was suffering with severe stomach pain and as well as disease of epilepsy. He denied suggestion that A.1 took Sunitha to Dr. P.G. Reddy, M.D.DM, Neuro of Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad for the treatment of epilepsy disease.
P.W.3, K.Chokka Reddy stated in his cross examination that he had not stated in his statement at the marriage has taken place on 20.5.05 as found in Ex.D.3. He admitted that he has not stated to police officer as he said now before the Court that on the engagement ceremony day PW.2 has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as part of the dowry.
P.W.4 K.Kavitha stated in her cross examination she has not stated to police officer that it was four days after the marriage, her husband suspecting her character that she is having illicit intimacy with others as in Ex.D.6. She denied suggestion that Sunitha was suffering with the disease stomach paid and epilepsy and due to those disease, her sister commit suicide, as such the accused are not responsible for the death of Sunitha and they filed a false, to extract amount.
PW.5 B.Raji Reddy stated in his cross examination that during varapooja his father-in-law paid Rs.1,00,000/- by going to Ittireddipalli to A.2 and A.3 along with A.1. He denied suggestion he has stated to Investigating Officer, he said know at Rs.1,00,000/- paid to accused. He further denied suggestion that Sunitha was suffering with disease with stomach pain and epilepsy and the accused never harassed her and the accused are not responsible for her death.
P.W.6 D. Rajamma stated in her cross examination she denied the suggestion that on that day of incident she has not seen Sunitha at her house nor spike to her.
P.W.7 K. Chukka Reddy stated in his cross examination that he has not stated to police that Annadi Adireddy and himself settled the marriage acting as mediators. He denied suggestion that he has not acted as mediator and there was no occasion of Sunitha coming to him and disclosing any difficulties.
PW.12 Dr. Shouraiah stated in his cross examination that a person who is suffering with epilepsy disease would have the tendency to commit suicide.
PW.17, Mr. A.Srinivas Rao, S.I. of Police, stated in his cross examination as per the endorsement made by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class in Ex.P.10 it was received on 27.1.2007 at 8.30 P.M.
PW.18, V. Ranga Rao, Addl. S.P. stated in his cross examination he has not investigated to find the education qualification of A.1 and deceased and also no proposal was made and fixed between A.1 and the deceased. He says that he has not found any incriminating material at the house in Bhagyanagar and he has not examined any neighbours to the said house in Bhagyanagar to learn about the truth of the victim leaving the house in an auto rickshaw on that day.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
The allegations made before the trial Court regarding the demand of dowry and harassment in the hands of the respondents/accused were not stated either in the complaint, Ex.P.1, or in the Statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The respondents/accused were able to prove the said fact that the prosecution witnesses failed to inform the harassment as well as the ill-treatment and also the demand of dowry either in the complaint or in their statements, by contradicting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. Further, P.W.1 stated that the deceased stated to P.W.1 that she consumed poison because of the harassment by respondents/accused. However, the respondents/accused were able to prove that the said information was not furnished by P.W.1 either in the complaint or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, by way of lengthy cross-examination of P.W.18, the investigating officer. In this connection, it is necessary to extract relevant portions of the cross-examination of P.W.18 and the same reads as under.
It is true PW-1 had neither mentioned in her complaint nor stated in the statement given to me once her husband and her brother and some elders went to the house of accused and pacify the accused that they have no capacity to pay the dowry. It is true PW- 1 had neither mentioned in her complaint nor her statement given to me her daughter when she came home after consuming the poison said that she consumed poison as they are not able and not in a position to pay dowry demanded by the accused and that they have to perform the marriage of another daughter and they have no capacity pay and therefore she has decided to end her life.
It is true PW-2 has stated to me as in Ex.D1 and Ex.D.2. It is true PW-2 had not stated to me that his daughter once telephoned to him and said she was given in marriage to a less educated person and that he has sent her to a hell house. It is true PW-2 had also not stated to me that when A-1 used to take his daughter to KIMS College and bring her and whenever her friends say ‘Hai and Hello’, A-1 used to taunt her, why the said persons are greeting her as such what is the relationship between her and them and on returning to the home he used to harass her in that matter. It is true PW-2 had also not stated to me that once A-1 took his daughter to Bazar, and there he met her old friends and seeing which he taunted her that the said girl is not of good character and therefore she is also not of good character.
It is true PW-2 had also not stated to me that after the above incident A-1 called him over phone and said whether his wife came to his home and then he went to his home and saw his daughter and asked her and she said she quarreled with her husband and went to the bazaar and returned. It is true PW-2 had also not stated to me that once he went to the house of A-2 and pleaded the accused with folded hands and touching his feet not to harass his daughter and live cordially with her. It is true PW-2 had also not stated that he went to Basara to pray the deity and that his wife informed him over phone his daughter having to said to her that A-1 harassed her stating he was not responsible for the pregnancy and A-2 and A-3 harassed her. It is true PW-2 had not stated to me that once on 26-1-2007 the son of his wife, sister Kishore visited Sunitha at her marital home and at that time A-1 kept cell phone switched on under the bed recorded what conversation gone between them.
PW-3 had stated to me as in Ex-D3 to Ex.D5.
It is true PW-4 had not stated to me that engagement was held 20 days prior to the marriage and her father has paid one lakh dowry amount and that by the date of marriage her father has paid the further amount of three lakhs towards the dowry. It is true Pw-4 had not stated to me that it was 20 days after the marriage troubles started for Sunitha with A-1 who suspected her character whenever she spokes to others. It is true PW-4 had stated to me that such disputes started 4 days after the marriage between her and her husband, as contained in Ex.D6. It is true PW-4 had not stated to me Sunitha used to come to her home and say grievingly that her husband was suspecting her character whenever she spoke to others and that she used to inform her over cell phone all those matters whenever she goes to college. It is true PW-4 had also not stated to me that on reaching the hospital and finding her sister dead, she enquired with her mother and her mother said to her that Sunitha came on that day morning and stated to her A.1 having stated to her that he is not responsible for the pregnancy she was carrying. It is true PW-4 had also not stated to me that she used to inform her father whatever matters Sunitha stated to her whenever she visited her.
It is true PW-5 had stated to me as in Ex.D7. It is true PW.5 had not stated to me his wife having informed him 20 days later to the marriage of Sunitha, Sunitha having stated to her that her husband A.1 had quarreled with her and harassing her and suspecting her character whenever he comes to her and spokes to her. It is true PW-5 also had not stated to me his wife having informed him Sunitha came to her and stated that her husband was harassing stating his brother was paid 6 lakhs dowry therefore he shall also be paid the difference amount of 2 lakhs as dowry. It is true PW.5 also had not stated to me that one lakh was paid by his father to the accused at the engagement ceremony and thereafter on two occasions by going to the village of accused the balance amount of 2 lakhs was paid. It is true PW.5 had stated to me as in Ex.D8 that at the time of marriage his father-in-law paid 4 lakhs dowry and 12 tolas of gold and other articles. PW.5 stated to me as in Ex.D9 that it was 4 days after the marriage A.1 started suspecting the character of Sunitha but not 20 days after the marriage. It is true PW.5 had not stated to me that it was Kishore who visited Sunitha on the day prior to her death.
It is true PW.6 had not stated to me that on seeing Sunitha they all rushed to her and they enquired that the Sunitha and she said to them that she consumed poison as she is not able to face the difficulties.
PW-7 had truly stated to me as in Ex.D10 that it was himself and Annadi Adi Reddy who has settled the marriage acting as mediators. It is true PW.7 had not stated to me that himself and PW.2 went to the house of accused and did the deliberations and fixed the marriage alliance.
On a careful perusal of the above cross-examination of P.W.18, it is evident that the allegation of harassment and other allegations deposed by the witnesses before the Court did not find place in the complaint, Ex.P.1, or in the Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said allegations are made before the Court with an intention to improve their case to attract an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Hence, the trial Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict a person on the improved versions of the case and also on the omissions, which amounts to contradictions. Hence, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, as the prosecution failed to prove its case.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court 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 04.12.2014 pln