M.Raghuramulu Yadav v. The State Of Ap.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.874 of 2013 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed questioning the judgment dt.2803-2013 in S.C.No.59 of 2012 of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad acquitting the respondents of having committed the offence under Section 304-B IPC. 2.

The appellant herein is the defactocomplainant. The appellant's daughter by name Smt.Mayuri was the wife of 1st respondent herein/A-1. The marriage between A-1 and Mayuri took place on 12-04-2007. A-2 and A-3 are father and mother of A-1. A-5 and A-6 are son-in-law and daughter of A-2 and A-3.

3.

It is alleged by the prosecution that on 260 6 - 2 0 1 1 Smt.Mayuri committed suicide by selfimmolation. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of A-1 with deceased, the defactocomplainant had paid dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and also presented 50 tulas of gold apart from spending huge amount to perform the marriage. After marriage, the deceased joined the accused and lived in the joint family. A-1 was not doing any work. He along with other accused

used to harass the deceased for additional dowry. A panchayat was conducted at the instance of P.W.1 wherein the accused were requested not to harass the deceased, but there was no change in the attitude of accused. It is alleged that the accused had stopped sending the deceased to the functions at the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and insisted that deceased get additional dowry or agree for a divorce with A-1. On 26-06-2011 there was a Satyanaraya Murthy Vratham at the house of elder daughter of P.W.1. The deceased was not sent to attend the said function and was subjected to cruelty by all the accused. Therefore, the prosecution alleges that in view of the said harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 26-06-2011.

4.

On the same day P.W.1 gave a report against all the accused. The Inspector of Police i.e. P.W.12 registered the complaint in Cr.No.219 of 2011 under Section 304-B IPC and took up investigation. Subsequently investigation was also done by P.W.13. Inquest was conducted by P.W.10 with the help of P.W.8 and L.W.12. A post mortem examination was conducted by P.W.11 and a certificate was issued stating that the deceased died due to burn injuries.

5.

Thereafter charge sheet was filed against all accused and it was alleged that since the suicidal death of deceased occurred within 7 years of marriage

and just before the said suicide, she was subjected to cruelty by all the accused, they are liable to punishment under Section 304-B IPC.

6. The charge sheet was filed by P.W.13 and registered P.R.C.No.154 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar.

Thereafter the Magistrate committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It was subsequently transferred to the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad and numbered as S.C.No.59 of 2012. 7.

During trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and M.Os.1 to 4. 8.

After the examination of prosecution witnesses, the incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the evidence and claimed to be tried.

9. By judgment dt.28-03-2013, the Court below acquitted all the accused.

10. Questioning the same, this appeal is filed by the the defacto-complainant i.e. P.W.1, who is father of deceased.

11.

It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the judgment of the Court below is

unsustainable; the evidence on record establishes beyond doubt that accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC; that they had harassed the deceased in connection with demands of additional dowry and had not sent the deceased to the functions at the house of elder daughter of P.W.1 just before the incident and this itself is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304-B IPC.

12.

The learned counsel for respondent contended that the judgment of Court below is correct and does not warrant any interference in appeal.

13. Section 304-B IPC states as under : "304-B. Dowry death:- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation:-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 14.

A reading of the above provision indicates that the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry

soon before her death. The expression "soon before" in Section 304-B IPC would imply that interval should not be much between concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question and there must be a proximate and live link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demanded and the concerned death.

(Hira Lal Vs. State of NCT[1]). It is also necessary that the prosecution should prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with dowry just before her death.

15.

P.W.1 is father of deceased and P.W.2 is wife of P.W.1. They both stated that at the time of marriage between deceased and A-1, they paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs and gave 50 tulas of gold towards dowry. P.W.1 also claimed to have spent Rs.20.00 lakhs to perform the marriage. According to P.W.1, A-1 was not doing any job and he used to harass the deceased for additional dowry. It is stated by P.W.1 that deceased gave birth to two daughters and one son. He also claimed that he had raised number of panchayats in regard to alleged harassment of deceased by accused and they tried to convince the accused.

16.

In the chief-examination of P.W.1, he only stated that A-1 used to harass the deceased. There is no allegation against other accused. Similar is the evidence of P.W.2 in her chief-examination.

17. It was suggested to P.W.1 that he had no capacity to pay the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry and give 50 tulas of gold as dowry apart from spending Rs.20.00 lakhs to perform the marriage. He admitted that he has own house at Gollakinki, but no agricultural lands apart from one house plot. He stated that he was doing business. He admitted that he is not an income tax assessee. He stated that his son had no permanent job and is a car driver. He stated that his other son is a student, who had failed Intermediate examination and was distributing milk. He claimed to have borrowed money from his elder son-in-law for the marriage and claimed to have cleared the loan. But the elder son-in-law of P.W.1 was not examined to prove that he had lent money to P.W.1 at the time of marriage of deceased with A-1. He also claimed to have sold his plot for Rs.22.00 lakhs. But no evidence of such sale was filed by him. It is therefore difficult to believe that such large sum of money and large quantity of gold was given by P.W.1 to the accused at the time of marriage with deceased.

18.

P.W.1 admitted that A-2 had Ac.30.00 of land and three shopping complexes at Raidurgam and had houses and plots also. He also stated that A-1 got a cool drink shop and used to sell milk products apart from doing finance business. Thus, his evidence indicates that A-1's family was a well to do unlike the family of P.W.1.

19. It was suggested to P.W.1 that the deceased was very sensitive and always expected her husband to obey her words and commands. It was also suggested to him that on the date of incident, there were some other functions also and A-1 asked the deceased to attend the Satyanarayana Murthy vratham along with his mother as he wished to attend to other functions; that the deceased insisted A-1 to accompany her only; and since A-1 refused to do so, she committed suicide.

20.

The specific case of accused was that the deceased was a very sensitive person and was always expecting her husband to oblige her commands and used to get upset if he is not heeding her words. A-1 had filed a statement during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination wherein he stated that even though he agreed to follow the deceased to the house of his sister-in-law in connection with pooja, since there were other wedding invitations received from his relatives, he wanted the deceased to go with his mother to the function in the deceased's sister's house and claimed that he wanted to attend the other wedding functions with his father. He stated that since he did not agree to oblige her request to accompany her to the function in her sister's house, the deceased had committed suicide. This appears to be probable.

21.

P.W.2 admitted that one Lakshman is

younger brother of P.W.1 and both the deceased and A-1 attended the marriage of one Radhika, the daughter of said Lakshman. She also admitted that Sankaraiah is her brother-in-law and A-1 along with deceased attended the marriage reception of daughter of Sankaraiah. She also stated that one Anjan Kumar Yadav (M.P.) is the younger brother of P.W.1 and that deceased and A-1 attended the marriages of the children of said Anjan Kumar Yadav. She also admitted that A-1 and deceased attended a marriage at the house of elder brother of her husband. She admitted that whenever A-1 left the deceased at the house of P.W.1 for a function, P.W.1 used to drop her at the matrimonial home after the function was over. In the light of these admissions of P.W.2, the allegation that accused had prevented the deceased from attending the functions in the house of P.W.1 or P.W.2 or their relatives, cannot be accepted.

22.

Admittedly, the marriage of deceased was performed on 12-04-2007 and she died on 26-06-2011 i.e. 4 years 2 months after the marriage with A-1. Admittedly, 3 children were born to deceased.

1st daughter was aged 4 years and the two sons were aged 3 and 11⁄2 years respectively. Thus, the children must have been born in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 mentioned in their evidence the specific instances or amounts allegedly demanded by A-1 and the

period when this demand was said to have been made. If really there was harassment as alleged by P.Ws.1 and 2, they would have stated that deceased had come away to their house unable to bear the harassment and stayed with them. But P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state that deceased had ever left the matrimonial home. This fact coupled with the fact that the deceased had delivered 3 issues within the short frame of 4 years of her marriage with A-1 also suggests that the story of alleged harassment by deceased is not true.

23. P.W.3's evidence is similar to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He admitted that he did not state before the police that A-1 harassed his sister since 3 months after the marriage. P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 are said to be panchayatdars, who conducted panchayats regarding the alleged harassment of deceased by A-1. They did not state when they conducted the alleged panchayats. P.W.4 admitted that he did not state before the police that P.W.1 told him that accused had started harassing the deceased from 6 months after the marriage. Likewise, P.W.5 admitted that he did not state before the police that he came to know about the dowry harassment about 6 months after the marriage. P.W.6 also stated that he did not state before the police that 4 or 5 months after marriage P.W.1 told him that A-1 was harassing the deceased. It is pertinent to note that even P.W.1 did not make any allegation in his evidence that accused started

harassing the deceased 6 months after the marriage. P.Ws.4 to 6 did not state the location where these panchayats were held and P.Ws.4 and 5 also admitted in cross-examination that they were not the eye-witnesses to the payment of dowry by P.W.1 to accused.

The omissions in the evidence of PWs 4 to 6 and the other evidence discussed above does not establish any harassment by A-1 of the deceased for dowry. There is also no evidence to establish the payment of dowry to A-1 by P.W.1 at the time of marriage of deceased with A-1.

24. As regards A-2 to A-6, no allegation is made by P.W.1 or P.W.2 that they harassed the deceased for dowry. They seem to have been falsely implicated by prosecution. It was suggested to both P.Ws.1 and 3 that after the death of deceased, they had demanded the accused to pay huge amount and since they refused, a false complaint was made against all the accused. This appears to be probable.

25. Having regard to the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the critical ingredients to prove the offence under Section 304-B IPC i.e. that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death for or in connection with the demand of dowry. The conclusion of the Court below is a reasonable conclusion and I completely agree with

the reasoning of the Court below.

26. I therefore do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

27.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 09-03-2015 Vsv/* [1] (2003) 8 SCC 80