THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1699 of 2006 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Appellant AND Repaka Rama Murthy & 2 others …..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1699 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 11.10.2004 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.17 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon in S.C.No.759 of 1999 dated 11.1.2002 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
A.1 is the husband and A.2 and A.3 are the in-laws of the deceased. The marriage of deceased took place with A.1 about three years prior to the date of incident. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.20,000/- along with gold and other articles were given to accused towards dowry. The deceased lived happily with A.1 for 6 months after her marriage. Thereafter all the accused started harassing the deceased to get additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. When the matter was placed before the elders, the dispute was settled and in pursuance of advice of elders, the parents of deceased gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused. In spite of that, the accused continued to harass the deceased demanding additional dowry. Having disgusted with life due to unbearable harassment of the accused, the deceased consumed insecticide poison on 01.01.1999 in the afternoon. When she was shifted to a private hospital, the doctor gave up hope of her survival and while she was being shifted to the village, she died on the way at about 3.30 p.m. on the same day. Upon the complaint lodged by P.W.1-Village Administrative Officer of Dunthalapalli village under Ex.P.1, police registered a case against the accused and after completion of all the formalities and investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences alleged.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record more particularly, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, parents of the deceased, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On appeal being filed by the accused, the lower appellate Court set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred the present appeal.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material brought on record.
The lower appellate Court acquitted the accused-respondents herein on the following grounds:
(1) Admittedly, the deceased died on 1.1.1999 and a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on 2.1.1999. In the said complaint there is no whisper regarding any demand of additional dowry or harassment by these respondents.
(2) Further at the time of Ex.P.1, the investigation was proceeded under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
(3) The witnesses those who were examined by the trial Court were earlier examined by the investigating officer.
(4) Further the inquest report-Ex.P.2 also does not disclose anything that the death of deceased was due to harassment and also in connection with demand of dowry, which is the document earlier in time.
(5) Neither in the complaint-Ex.P.1 nor in Ex.P.2-inquest report nothing is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Thereafter, the investigation was proceeded on 3.4.1999, 21.4.1999 and 30.4.1999 and later the witnesses implicated the respondents herein.
Basing on the above, the learned lower appellate Court is of the view that prosecution suppressed those documents that were collected during the period when the case was investigated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Basing on the subsequent developments that too after lapse of three months the section of law was altered. Therefore, there is every possibility of due deliberations and improvements with intent to implicate the respondents herein. Hence, the lower appellate Court is of the view that even though they adduced the evidence after three months and though the witnesses were aware of the fact that the death of the deceased is in unnatural circumstances still they failed to depose regarding the harassment and also the cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Hence, the lower appellate Court acquitted the accused-respondents herein. This Court is also of the view that when there is suppression of material facts more particularly the statements adduced by the witnesses concerned those who are examined before the trial Court necessarily it is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it caused prejudice to the accused as they could not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses basing on their earlier statements. Hence, the findings of the lower appellate Court in acquitting the accused-respondents are in according with law and no ground is made out to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the lower appellate Court.
The Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 15.12.2014 Tsr