THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1630 of 2007 15-10-2014 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Appellant AND Thadkapalli Parshuramulu And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1630 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 19.10.2005 passed in S.C.No.767 of 2004 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That P.W.1 has performed the marriage of his younger daughter one year prior to the occurrence. At the time of marriage, he presented and agreed to pay dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- to his son-in-law, A.1, apart from gold and silver. After the marriage, the couple lived happily for about six months, and thereafter, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the deceased mentally and physically demanding additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-, on that P.W.1 called A.1 and paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- and sent the deceased with him. Two months thereafter, again A.1 to A.3 started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry and sent the deceased to her parents’ house. On 25.02.2004, at about 6.00 p.m., the Sarpanch of Somarampet village informed P.W.1 over telephone that the deceased poured kerosene and set herself on fire at about 5.00 p.m., and she was in serious condition, on that P.W.1 along with his wife P.W.2 rushed to the hospital, there she died. Basing on the complaint, P.W.8 registered the case against A.1 to A.3 and the matter was investigated. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused observing as under.
P.W. 1, in his entire evidence, nowhere deposed that the accused directly demanded him to pay additional dowry amount of Rs.30,000/-.
He categorically deposed that the deceased came to his house and told him that the accused are harassing and ill-treating the deceased to bring additional dowry. Further, there is no specific date from which date the accused started harassing after the marriage. The evidence of
P.W.1 does not show which accused used to harass the deceased to bring additional dowry amount. The omnibus statement does not help the prosecution to base the conviction against the accused without any specific allegations against the accused.
The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that there is inconsistency in their evidence. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, did not speak about the panchayat, whereas P.W.4 deposed that a panchayat was held and in that panchayat, he along with L.W.6, another panchayatdar, persuaded the accused and advised P.W.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- to A.1 and sent the deceased with A.1 to their house. According to P.W.4, the above incident took place two months prior to the death of the deceased. Hence, there is a serious inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2.
On perusing the entire evidence, P.W.1, father of the deceased or P.W.2, mother of the deceased or any other witness did not state specific instances or incidents with regard to harassment or cruelty towards the deceased in the hands of the accused nor did they state the nature of harassment. Further, there are no allegations against the accused, which attract an offence under Section 304-B IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove any proximity between the death of the deceased and the harassment. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused committed the offences alleged against them, the appellants/accused cannot be convicted and as such, they are entitled for acquittal.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
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 15.10.2014 pln