Allam Satyanarayana vs State of A.P.

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.01.2002 passed in Sessions Case No.87 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge found A 1 Allam Satyanarayana guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 304-B IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence u/s 498-A IPC and directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently. However, the learned Sessions Judge found A2 Pallanti Narasinga Rao and A3 Pallanti Uma Devi not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and accordingly acquitted them of the same.

The appellate herein is A 1 in Sessions Case No.87 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. He along with two other accused persons viz., Pallanti Narasinga Rao A2 and Pallanti Uma Devi A3 was put on trial for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is: A3 Pallanti Uma Devi and A2 Pallanti Narasinga Rao are sister and brother-in-law respectively of A1 Allam Satyanarayana. PW3 Pillala Vijaya Gopala Rao has three daughters through his first wife - Dwaraka. He married PW4 Meenakshi after the death of his wife - Dwaraka. He has two sons through second wife - PW4 Meenakshi. His eldest daughter (Monika) through his first wife got married to A 1 Allam Satyanarayana on 19.08.1996. A 1 Allam Satyanarayana was working as a trainee spot news Sub-Editor in Andhra Jyothi as on the date of marriage. At the time of marriage, PW3 gave cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and presented 6 1/2 tolas of gold ornaments and Rs. 10,000 towards "Aadapaduchu Lanchanams Monika was appearing for B.Ed, final examinations in the year 1996. After completing B.Ed. examinations, she joined with A 1 at Vijayawada for marital life. In the month of May. 1997 A 1 shifted his residence to Visakhapatnam and joined as Sub-Editor in Andhra Jyothi, Visakhapatnam. Monika and her husband/A 1 stayed in the house of PW3 for about 15 days. 5 or 6 days after A 1 joining as Sub-Editor, Andhra Jyothi, Visakhapatnam, he demanded Monika to bring money from her parents so as to secure a rented house for their residence. PW3 expressed his inability and advised Monika to stay in his house for some more days. It is alleged that A 1 beat Monika with a belt on the ground that she could not secure the amount as demanded by him. PW3 claims to have seen the injury sustained by her - due to the beatings given by A 1 with a belt. A 1 and Monika put up in a portion of the house owned by PW 1 Karanam Naidu on rent. Monika secured employment as Teacher in the month of July, 1997. A 1 demanded Monika to bring Kurl-on bed and cot, iron safe, sofa set and provisions for two months from her father PW3. PW3 expressed his inability to comply the demand of A 1. On 14.08.1997 the accused telephoned PW3 and asked him to come over to his house. PW3 was informed by PW 1 over phone that Monika was in trouble. On receipt of telephone calls, PW3 went to the photo studio of Pillala Satyanarayana PW13. He accompanied by PW 13-Pillala Satyanarayana went to the house of A 1. As soon as they entered the house, A 1 started abusing him stating that without disclosing that Monika is his daughter through his first wife and that he has two more daughters through his first wife and that Monika has been married to him though she is not beautiful. A 1 stated to have proclaimed that he would not allow Monika to live with him unless the demands made by him were complied. In the month of October, 1997 Monika telephoned to her step mother PW4 that she got her pregnancy aborted on the pressure exerted by A 1. When her step mother PW4 questioned Monika as to why she succumbed to the pressure, she informed her that she was in a hell and therefore, she did not want to bring her child to the same hell. In the month of November, 1997, Monika asked her father PW3 to give Rs.200/- to perform Punnami Pooja in Karthika Masam. When PW3 offered Rs.500, she did not accept the entire amount and she returned Rs.300. When PW3 asked her as to why she did not receive the entire amount, she told that A 1 would not be satisfied even if L.I.C. building was conveyed to him. In the month of December, 1997 the mother of PW3 died and therefore, he along with his wife PW4 went to Calcutta. While PW3 was in Calcutta, A 1 telephoned PW5, who is the brother of Monika, asking him to come to the house. Therefore, PW5 went to the house of A 1 and in his presence A 1 beat Monika and threw her suitcase out of the house and asked PW5 to take away Monika along with him. PW5 did not take Monika with him since his parents were away from Visakhapatnam. 18.01.1998 happens to be the birthday of PW3 P.V.Gopal Rao. Monika came to the house of PW3 on 18.01.1998 and asked him to give gold pendant which he purchased during Monika''s childhood days. PW3 refused to give the gold pendant on the ground that the same is to be given to her child. Monika told PW3 that she would face some problems if she did not take gold pendant to her house. On the intervening night of 21/22.01.1998 at 00.30 hours, PW3 received telephone call from the landlord PW 1 that Monika died. PW3 accompanied by his wife-PW4, his son PW5 and neighbours went to the house of A 1 and found Monika (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') lying dead. PW3 went to IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and presented Ex.P.2 report. The Sub-Inspector of Police, received Ex.P.2 report on 22.01.1998 at 10.30 A.M. and registered a case in Crime No.22 of 1998 for the offence u/s 304-B IPC and issued Ex.P.12 FIR. PW19 P.V.G.Vijaya Kumar, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Circle-III, Visakhapatnam, received copy of the FIR and took up investigation. He sent requisition to the Mandal Executive Magistrate to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW18 Sri S.B.V.A.Seetharama Raju, Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, received requisition on 22.01.1998 from the Station House Officer, IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam, to conduct inquest over the dead body of the" deceased. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on the same day between 11.00 A.M. and 12.00 noon in the presence of PW 16 K.Ananda Rao and two others. He examined PW1 to PW5 and on hearing their statements, the opinion arrived by the panchas on hearing their statements of the witnesses came to be incorporated in Col. 15 of the inquest report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.6. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. PW 17 Dr.N.V.S.L.Narasimham along with Dr.V.Narayana Rao conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on the same day. He reserved his opinion pending receipt of the chemical analyst report. After receipt of the chemical analyst report, he issued final opinion report opining that the deceased died of consumption of Carbamate, a household insecticide poison. Ex.P.7 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.P.8 is the chemical analyst report and Ex.P.9 is the final opinion. PW19 arrested A 1 to A3 on 23.01.1998 and sent them for remand. PW20 M.A.Rosham, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, South, Visakhapatnam, took up investigation and found the investigation done by PW19 on correct lines. He forwarded the material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. After completion of investigation, PW21 P.S.R.Prasad, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam North, laid a charge sheet in the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate took the case on file as P.R.C.No.7 of 1999 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Visakhapatnam, as the offence u/s 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions case No.87 of 1999 and made over the same to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam for trial.

The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 21 witnesses and proved 12 documents. On behalf of the accused, they marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8.

The learned Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 Allam Satyanarayana guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498A IPC and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 304-B IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 498-A IPC, by judgment dated 03.01.2002. Hence, this criminal appeal by appellant A 1 Allam Satyanarayana.

Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant A 1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

Sri. C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 submits that Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 letters said to have been authored by the deceased do not indicate demands of dowry and therefore, a charge u/s 304-B IPC falls to the ground. He would further submit that except the interested testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW5, there is no evidence to speak of dowry demands said to have been made by A 1 and in which case, the conviction of the appellant A 1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and, 304-B IPC is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. He took me to the contents of Exs.P3, P4 and P5 to convince that they do not contain any demands, more so, dowry demands allegedly made by the appellant-A 1.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits that the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 is cogent and consistent with regard to the dowry demands made by the appellant A 1 and consequent harassment of the deceased.

The essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are:

(1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

(4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

The offence of "dowry death" was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code and corresponding amendment made in the Evidence Act by way of insertion of Section 113-B vide Act No.43 of 1986. In fact the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 being Act No.28 of 1961 was enacted on 20th May, 1961 with an object to prohibit to giving or taking the dowry. The insertion of Section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B in the Evidence Act besides other circumstances was also referable to the 91st Report dated 10th August, 1983 of the Law Commission. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Act No.28 of 1961 it was stated:

The object of this Bill is to prohibit the evil practice of giving and taking of dowry. This question has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past, and one of the methods by which this problem, which is essentially a social one, was sought to be tackled was by the conferment of improved property rights on women by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is, however, felt that a law which makes the practice punishable and at the same time ensures that any dowry, if given does ensure for the benefit of the wife will go a long way to educating public opinion and to the eradication of this evil. There has also been a persistent demand for such a law both in and outside Parliament. Hence, the present Bill.

Realising the ever increasing and disturbing proportions of the evil of dowry system, the Act was again amended by Act No.63 of 1984 taking note of the observations of the Committee on status of Women in India and with a view to making of thorough and compulsory investigations into cases of dowry deaths and stepping up anti-dowry publicity, the Government referred the whole matter for consideration by a Joint Committee of both the Houses of Parliament. The Committee went into the whole matter in great depth in its proceedings and after noting the observations of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, recommended to examine the working of Act No.28 of 1961 and after considering the comments received on the Report from the State Governments, Union Territories, Administrations and different administrative Ministries of the Union concerned with the matter, decided to modify the original definition of "dowry" with consequential amendment in the Act. Again finding that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has not been so deterrent, as it was expected to be, the Parliament made amendments in the Act vide Act No.43 of 1986. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act, it was stated:

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was recently amended by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to give effect to certain recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House of Parliament to examine the question of the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and to make the provisions of the Act more stringent and effective. Although the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was an improvement on the existing legislation, opinions have been expressed by representatives from women''s voluntary organizations and others to the effect that the amendments made are still inadequate and the Act needs to be further amended.

It is, therefore, proposed to further amend the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to make provisions therein further stringent and effective. The salient features of the Bill are:

(a) The minimum punishment for taking or abetting the taking of dowry u/s 3 of the Act has been raised to five years and a fine of rupees fifteen thousand.

(b) The burden of proving that there was no demand for dowry will be on the person who takes or abets the taking of dowry.

(c) The statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall to subject him to prosecution under the Act.

(d) Any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical journal or any other media by any person offering any share in his property or any money in consideration of the marriage of his son to daughter is proposed to be banned and the person giving such advertisement and the printer or publisher of such advertisement will be liable for punishment with imprisonment of six months to five years or with fine up to fifteen thousand rupees.

(e) Offences under the Act are proposed to be made non-bailable.

(f) Provision has also been for appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers by the State Governments for the effective implementation of the Act. The Dowry Prohibition Officers will be assisted by the Advisory Boards consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women).

(g) a new offence of "dowry death" is proposed to be included in the Indian Penal Code and the necessary consequential amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have also been proposed.

The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objects.

The law as it exists now provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any harm or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be punishable u/s 304-B. The expression ''soon before'' death is explained in Hiralal v. State AIR 2003 SC 2005 : 2006 AIR SCW 3570. The determination of the period which can come within the term ''soon before'' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression ''soon before'' would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. The Supreme Court in Khailash v. State of M.P. 2006 SCW 5126 held that the determination of period which can come within the term ''soon before'' is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.

The fact that deceased died of consumption of Carbamate, a household insecticide poison, is fully established by the prosecution through the postmortem doctor, who has been examined as PW17. It is also not in dispute that the death of deceased occurred within seven years of the marriage. More precisely her marriage took place on 19.08.1996 and she died on 21.01.1998. The only question that survives is whether she was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry.

PW1 is the owner of the house wherein the deceased and A 1 stayed together on rent. PW2 is the wife of PW1. PW3 is father, PW4 is step mother and PW5 is brother respectively of the deceased. PW6 is the mediator for marriage talks. He claims to have received a telephone call two months prior to the death of the deceased. According to him, deceased asked him to secure employment so as to avoid receiving beatings from her husband-A 1. PW7 is colleague of PW3 and also his family friend. He stated that PW3 informed him that A 1 was harassing the deceased and beating her to bring gold chain from him. PW8 is neighbour to PW3. He testifies that the deceased informed him that A1 had been demanding her to bring additional dowry and thereupon he consoled her that time would solve the problem. PW9 is family friend of PW3. He stated that he attended birthday function of PW3 held on 18.01.1998 and in the birthday function, the deceased informed PW3 that accused demanded her to bring her gold locket and harassed heron that score by giving beatings with a belt. PW 11 is nephew of PW3. He and the deceased were close friends. He stated that the deceased informed him that her husband - A 1 had been harassing her with a demand to bring money and gold from her parents. PW 12 runs a National Tutorial College in Akkayyapalem. The deceased worked in the National Tutorial College in Akkayyapalem for about one month and ten days i.e. from 01.12.1997 to 10.01.1998. He testifies that on 21.12.1997 when the deceased attended her duties, he asked the deceased as to why she was looking dull and as to why she did not bring the answer sheets of the students and thereupon the deceased informed him that her husband harassing her and hence, she could not attend correction of answer sheets at home. PW 13 runs a photo studio under the name and style of Lakshmi Ganesh Photo Studio in Thatichetlapalem. He is a social worker and also arranges marriages without any remuneration. He testifies that PW3 informed him that A 1 had been harassing the deceased with a demand to bring additional dowry. He also testifies that on one occasion he along with PW3 went to the house of A 1 and questioned him about his conduct towards the deceased and thereupon A 1 beat the deceased in their presence. PW 14 is the sister of PW3. PW15 is the husband of PW 14. PW16 is the panch witness for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. PW 17 is the postmortem doctor. PW 18 is the Mandal Executive Magistrate, who held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. PW 19 to PW21 are the investigating officers. Of these witnesses, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW13 are the material witnesses. PW3 narrates the marital life of the deceased with A 1.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant A 1 by referring the evidence of PW3 contends that the ground for harassment is not consistent and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony.

I have gone through the evidence of PW3. The fate of the deceased in the hands of A 1 right from the date of her joining A 1 has been detailed by PW3. Specific instances of harassment have been stated by PW3 in great detail. PW4 and PW5 corroborated the testimony of PW3 on all material aspects.

Learned senior counsel by referring the latest incident that occurred on 18.01.1998 contends that the deceased might have taken the extreme step because of PW3 not returning her gold pendant.

The incident occurred on 18.01.1998 cannot be read in isolation. It must be read in consonance with the incidents preceded 18.01.1998. The evidence of PW3 is crystal clear that A 1 started harassing the deceased on the ground of additional dowry since few days of the marriage. Once the prosecution is able to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death, her death is to be classified as dowry death. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found A 1 guilty of the offence u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellant - A 1 for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bounds furnished by the appellant - A 1 shall stand cancelled and he shall surrender before the trial Court to serve the remainder of sentence.