THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1465 of 2007
07-08-2014
BETWEEN:
State of Andhra Pradesh by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Appellant AND Pendela Srinivas And others …..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1465 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 28.11.2005 passed in S.C. No.150 of 2005 by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the marriage of A.1 with the deceased was performed about 6 years prior to her death and that out of said wedlock, they were blessed with two female children. A.1 received Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry apart from other household articles from the parents of deceased at the time of marriage. After leading a happy marital life for about one year, A.1, his father A.2 and his sister A.3 started harassing the deceased mentally and physically for additional dowry. The deceased informed about the same to her parents, on which her father gave Rs.30,000/- to A.1, but still the accused continued ill-treatment of harassment and that unable to bear with the same, the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. Basing on the complainant lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
Admittedly the death of the deceased occurred after seven of marriage and as such, the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not attracted and the same is established in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Hence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on that count. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and the relevant observations are as following.
Now coming to the aspect of alleged cruelty meted out by the deceased at the hands of the accused persons for want of additional dowry, it is to be seen that except the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, there is no other evidence to corroborate the prosecution case. PW-1 is father, PW-2 is mother and PW-3 is maternal uncle of the deceased and that as such interested witnesses. Therefore, their versions have to be scrutinized cautiously and carefully, Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged by PW-1 at P.S. Jangaon on 6-10-04 at 21.00 hours. As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P-1, PW-1 gave Rs.1,50,000/- and other house-hold articles to the A-1, at the time of marriage as dowry. As per the contents of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of PW-1, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was subsequently given by PW-1 to A-1 at the time of birth of first daughter, but PW-2 and PW- 3 did not whisper about it in their entire evidence. However, they have deposed that PW-1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- and one house site to A-1 as additional dowry at the time of birth of second daughter to the deceased, but PW-1 did not depose about the payment of cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 shows that a panchayath was held at the house of PW-1 at Hyderabad in which the elders allegedly advised A-1 to lookafter the deceased properly, but Ex.P-1 is silent about it. The prosecution has neither cited nor examined any of the elders of the panchayath. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 suffers with material omissions amounting to contradictions with that of their earlier statements given to the I.O., PW-14 U/S. 161 Cr.P.C. PWs 1 to 3 have deposed in the court, that PW-1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- and one house plot to A-1, after the birth of second daughter to the deceased and that now and then A-1 used to demand additional dowry on telephone by informing that the deceased was doing well and that A-1 threatened PW-2 to cause harm to the deceased, if additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- was not paid immediately and that the deceased expressed her willingness to go to her parents house due to fear by telephoning to PW-2 and that a panchayath was held in which the elders advised A-1 to treat the deceased properly. But PWs 1 to 3 did not state about the said facts in their statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C., before PW-14.
Thus the version of PWs 1 to 3 are riddled with material contradictions and omissions in respect of demand of dowry. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Venkatachandra Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, “2001 CRI L.J.2630”, ruled that, when the evidence of interested witnesses are with contradictions and omissions, it is not safe to rely upon such testimony in the absence of any independent corroboration on the crucial aspect may hazardous to find the accused guilt particularly in view of the nature of the offence, presumption under law about the death of the deceased on account of existence of certain circumstances enjoined U/s. 304-B of IPC. In this case also except the evidence of parents and younger sister of the deceased, who are interested witnesses, there is no corroboration to the prosecution case from the evidence of any of the independent witnesses.
It is pertinent to note that PWs 1 and 2 have admitted in their cross examination that 5 days prior to the incident, PW-2, elder daughter of the deceased and sisters of PW-2 went to the house of A-1, stayed there for one day and then left to Hyderabad. They have further admitted that one day prior to the incident, PW-2 telephoned the deceased and informed that her elder daughter was suffering with severe stomach pain and that even A-1 telephoned PW-2 on that day at about 8.00 PM and enquired about the health of his elder daughter and informed that he would be going to Hyderabad on the next day to take his daughter to his house at Jangaon. Admittedly, this was the last call from A-1 on telephone. Had the accused threatened and demanded additional dowry as alleged by PWs 1 to 3 in their chief examination, there could have been some untoward incident at the house of A-1 by the time of visit of PW-2 with her sisters and that A-1 would not have expressed his willingness to go to the house of PWs.1 and 2 one day prior to the incident. It is also to be noted that evidence of PW-1 is self-contradictory because during his chief examination he deposed that he gave 5 tulas of gold ornaments to A-1 as dowry but during his cross examination he admitted that he gave the same to the deceased, but not to the A-1 at the time of the marriage.
Heard and perused the records.
The observations as above are in connection with material omissions amounting to contradictions with that of their earlier statements given to the investigation officer, and that the same are admitted by the witnesses concerned as well as the investigation officer.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Court below has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused is also 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 fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 07.08.2014 pln