THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1103 of 2007 09-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Vema Peramma And others.
…..Appellants/Accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of A.P., …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1103 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.3 against the Judgment dated 17.08.2007 passed in S.C.No.23 of 2007 by the Court of the III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants/A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC, and accordingly sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, in default, to undergo rigorous simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
That the deceased committed suicide on 26.02.2006 in her matrimonial home by consuming poison unable to bear the continuous harassment of the appellants in connection with additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and also on questioning her by the accused for not giving birth to a child even after twelve years of marriage. Since the death occurred after twelve years of marriage, the investigation officer registered the case for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and also on the allegation that on 26.02.2006, the deceased was subjected to physical assault, which necessitated her to consume poison and committed suicide and as such, an offence under Section 306 IPC. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, a case was registered against the appellants/accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased.
P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.4 is another brother of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 4 deposed regarding the harassment of the appellants/accused with regard to additional dowry and also harassment with regard to not begetting the children even after twelve years of marriage. P.W.5 is the resident of the said village. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the Panchayadats in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.8 is the person who lent an amount of Rs.20,000/- to P.W.1 on his request to give the said amount to A.3. P.W.9 is the person who affixed his signature on the panchanama. P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated the deceased and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. P.W.11 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy and found the injuries on the dead body of the deceased.
P.W.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.1 to A.3 guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.3.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4 is relevant to decide the issue in connection with harassment and also the demand of additional dowry and inducement to commit suicide.
The main allegations as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are as follows. That they gave Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry during the time of marriage, which was solemnized twelve years prior to the death of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellants/accused demanded additional dowry and also questioned the deceased on the ground that she has not given birth to a child and also insulted her. The appellants/accused further informed the deceased that A.3, who is the husband of the deceased, would marry another woman. Further, it is the case of P.Ws.1 to 4 that on 26.02.2006, they received a phone call, wherein the deceased informed them that she was subjected to harassment and on hearing the same, P.Ws.1 to 4 reached the house of deceased, by that time the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. They also deposed that they saw the injuries on the body of the deceased.
The said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was contradicted by the appellants/A.1 to A.3 by way of putting suggestions. The said suggestions were denied by P.W.1 and the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination reads as under.
It is not true to say that I never stated to police that one day my sister came to Reddypalem after beating, and stayed there. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that we approached Pulla Rao and he advised the accused to live amicably and by that word, we sent my sister to the house of the accused. it is not true to say that I never stated to police that accused demanded one lakh and gave Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/-. It is not true to say that as per my sister done phone call to me to bring the amount, and that I took Krishna Reddy and Venkateswarlu to the house of accused for giving amount particularly I never stated to police that I haven two persons to accused house. It is not true to say that I never stated in my complaint that accused demanded amount for purchase of tractor. It is not true to say that I gave Rs.50,000/- through mediators. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that accused were beating my sister for not having children, and that I saw the injuries on the deceased and also of passing nature call in her saree. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that I enquired the accused regarding my sister death.
P.W.3 also denied the suggestions put by the counsel for the appellants/accused and the relevant portion is extracted as under.
It is not true to say that A.1 to A.3 do not harass my daughter and they never beat my daughter and that they never harass my daughter for want of amount as they possess sufficient amount. It is not true to say that I never stated police that my daughter sustained injuries over her chest, neck and that the room is filled with insecticide poison smell. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that the accused used to harass deceased for not having children and they want to remarry A.3. P.W.1 was enquired by the police. I was questioned by police, but due to weeping I could not answer properly and fell unconscious. Phone was lifted by my younger daughter-in-law. Police did not enquire regarding the second phone call received by us. It is not true to say that they never harass my daughter and they stayed cordially.
P.W.4 also denied the suggestions put by the counsel for the appellants/accused and the relevant portion is extracted as under.
It is not true to say that I never stated to police that I conducted enquiry at the time of death of my sister and that there was dispute between A.1 and A.2 with my sister. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that my sister used to reply to the questions of accused. It is not true to say that I never stated to police that my sister sustained injuries on her body on chest, arms and on neck and on breast, and passed nature call in her saree. It is not true to say that there were no disputes between my sister and A.3 were living cordially. Witness adds that they were happy only for 1-2 years. It is not true to say that we never given any amount for purchasing tractor and that I am deposing falsely only to extract amount from accused.
Contrary to the above, the Investigation Officer, P.W.12, in his cross- examination clearly admitted that the appellants/accused did not state before him regarding the harassment on the pretext that the deceased is not blessed with children and other allegations at the time of lodging the complaint or at the time of investigation. The relevant portion of his cross-examination reads as under.
P.W.1 did not state before me that all the accused herein used to harass the deceased on the pretext that she is not blessed with children and to leave their house so that he could perform second marriage to A.3. The witness adds that the same is mentioned in the Complaint. P.W.1 did not state before me that the deceased gave a phone call to P.W.1 and informed me that the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry but P.W.1 stated that the deceased informed me about the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by P.W.1. In Ex.P.1 there is no mention that A.3 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of vehicle. In the complaint, there is no mention with regard to the payment of Rs.50,000/- but therein it is mentioned that he paid Rs.40,000/-. P.W.1 did not state before me that A.1 and A.3 beat the deceased. P.W.1 did not state before me that when he saw the dead body of the deceased, he found injuries on the body and also that the deceased had went to toilet in her saree. P.W.1 did not state in his statement that he enquired the accused about the cause of the death.
In view of the above, the allegation made by P.Ws.1 to 4, as supported by P.Ws.6 and 7, that earlier a Panchayat was conducted in connection with demand of Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry, cannot be taken into account as the same was not stated by the witnesses either in the complaint or at the time of examination by the investigation officer, which is a material omission amounting to contradiction.
Insofar the other allegation that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with the fact that she did not begot the children was stated in the complaint. It is the case of prosecution as well as the appellants that the deceased and appellant No.3 were not having any children during their matrimonial life. The deceased was subjected to harassment in regard to the issue of not getting the children even after twelve years of marriage. There are no specific instances or incidents mentioned by any of the witnesses as against the appellants 1 and 2 are concerned. What remains in this case is the telephonic information by the deceased on the date of occurrence i.e., 26.02.2006 and the injuries sustained by her. The fact remains that the deceased died due to consumption of poison. The death is unnatural coupled with the fact that she sustained injuries on her body as per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.11, who examined the deceased, and reads as under.
1. Teeth bite on the left side of the breast
2. Abrasion below the left eye
3. Abrasion below the right shoulder
4. Scratch on the left hand wrist.
5. Abrasion injury on the back side of the elbow joint
6. Contusion injury on the throat.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the husband i.e., A.3 on the date of occurrence, which necessitated her to commit suicide. Insofar as appellant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are no specific instances or allegations regarding the physical assault or the verbal abuse prior to the death of the deceased and hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant Nos.1 and 2.
Insofar as the offence as against A.3 is concerned, it is his duty of the husband, i.e., A.3, to explain as to how his wife, the deceased, sustained injuries especially when A.3 and the deceased have been living under one roof. But, A.3 could not explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses could able to establish the fact that the deceased was beaten by A.3 as they received a telephonic call from the deceased on the date of occurrence, in which, the deceased stated that she was beaten by her husband and also the fact that A.3 abused her in filthy language. Hence, this Court is of the view that A.3 has committed the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused submits that A.3 is the only breadwinner in his family and he has to lookafter his old aged mother and further submits that as the death of the deceased happened after twelve years of marriage and there are disputes regarding not having the children and it is not the intention of A.3 to harass the deceased, and as such, lenient view may be taken while imposing sentence of imprisonment. In view of the said submissions, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view while imposing sentence of imprisonment against A.3 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC.
In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below against the appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 shall be refunded to them.
The conviction recorded by the Court below against appellant No.3/A.3 for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment against appellant No.3/A.3 for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498-A IPC is modified and reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment each for both the offences. The amount of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The period already undergone by the appellant No.3/A.3 shall be given setoff under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant No.3/A.3 is directed to surrender before the Court concerned on or before 20th January, 2015 to serve the remaining sentence. On his failure to surrender, the Court below is at liberty to take coercive steps to secure him in order to serve the remaining sentence.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 09.12.2014 pln