State Of Telangana vs Kadari Parsharamulu

The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences under section 498-A and 304-B of IPC by judgment dated 19.10.2020. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the State seeking interference by this Court to reverse the order of acquittal.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.06.2015, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 filed a complaint stating that his deceased daughter’s marriage was performed with the respondent/accused on 22.06.2014 and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.50,000/- and one gunta of land at Vidyanagar, Karimnagar was given as dowry. After the marriage, though his deceased daughter and the respondent/accused lived happily for three months, however, the respondent/accused and his mother started demanding for additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh. Due to the continuous harassment meted out by the respondent/accused and his mother, the deceased went to the house of P.W.1 and when the family members went for coolie work, the deceased committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan.

During trial, the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and also marked Exs.P1 to P6. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent for the following reasons; i) the prosecution failed to prove that any dowry was given to the respondent/accused; ii) during the course of investigation, the demand of Rs.1.00 lakh was made for the purpose of digging of borewell and the witnesses have contradicted their own version by stating that there was a demand for additional dowry for Rs.1.00 lakh; iii) there are no specific dates or any instances stated by the prosecution witnesses regarding subjecting the deceased to harassment for additional dowry; iv) though there were several houses surrounding the house of the respondent, the Investigating Officer failed to examine any neighbours; v) though the case was that there were mediators for the payment of Rs.50,000/- dowry and also settlement of demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, however no such mediators are examined;

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are the father, sister and brother of the deceased deposed consistently regarding the demand of additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and dowry of Rs.50,000/-, the Sessions Judge committed an error in disbelieving the said evidence and acquitted the respondent/accused. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent and believable, their evidence cannot be brushed aside for the reason of they being very close relatives of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there are no specific instances of harassment and in fact, the deceased died in the house of P.W.1, which is her matrimonial house. It is for P.W.1, the father, to explain under what circumstances the death occurred in the background of there being no harassment of any dowry demand.

As seen from the record, P.Ws.1 to 3 have consistently spoken about demand of Rs.50,000/- and that there was demand for additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh. However there are no specific instances narrated by the witnesses to convince the Court. In such cases where death occurs, it is likely that grief results in hatred against the husband and in-laws and accuse them of being responsible for the suicide. Exaggerations and false implications are bound to happen. In the said background of interested witnesses making such allegations and when no specific instances given, the Court would not accept such vague allegations since something more than a bald allegation is required to convince the Court and at the same time the Court to accept that the allegations as correct.

Further the witnesses have admittedly stated that Rs.1.00 lakh was asked for the purpose of digging borewell during investigation and elicited during cross-examination. Such demand for digging of borewell would not amount to demand of additional dowry. It is necessary to prove that the demand of dowry should have been made at the time of marriage or subsequently in consideration for marriage, as can be deduced from the definition of dowry under Dowry Prohibition Act.

In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 721, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that demand for domestic expenses and purchasing of manure cannot be said to be demand for dowry. In the case of Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder v. State of West Bengal (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 202, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 10 as follows:

“10. The basic ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 304-B are as follows:

(1) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal 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; and

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

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in the absence of any harassment proximate to the death of the deceased, the provisions of Section 304-B of IPC would not be attracted.

The allegation that there was demand for additional dowry as discussed above was subsequently stated though during the course of investigation, it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was towards the digging of borewell. The deceased died in her matrimonial house and except saying that there was a demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, there is no evidence to proximately connect such harassment with the death of the deceased. In the said circumstances, the prosecution failed to discharge their initial burden of proof that the deceased committed suicide due to cruelty or harassment in connection with any dowry.

In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge for recording acquittal being reasonable, the judgment of Sessions Court does not warrant for any interference.

For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal filed by the State is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.