AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 02.03.2017 in S.C.No.194 of 2015 passed by the learned VIII – Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak.
The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the deceased Anitha, gave complaint on 03.01.2014, at about 8:00 AM stating that she performed the marriage of her daughter with A.1 on 16.05.2013 and gave Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry and they lived happily for about three months. Thereafter, her son-in-law started picking up quarrels for want of additional dowry and in this regard, a Panchayat was also conducted before the elders and sent her daughter again to the matrimonial house, but her son-in-law and his parents demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of compressor tractor, as such she arranged Rs.50,000/- and purchased a compressor tractor in finance, but A.1 did not pay the installments to the finance and thus again the mother of the deceased paid Rs.20,000/-. Again when all the accused insisted her daughter for additional dowry, she promised to give the amount on the Sankranthi festival, even then they are continuously harassing her daughter physically and mentally. On 02.01.2015, at about 8:00 PM, the house owner Srinivas telephoned and informed that her daughter Anitha committed suicide by hanging with saree. Immediately, she rushed to the spot and found her daughter dead. Therefore, requested the police to take action against the accused, who are responsible for the death of her daughter by demanding additional dowry and harassed her mentally. In fact, complaint was drafted by her brother on her dictation.
To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 on their behalf and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and also marked M.Os.1 to 5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A.2 and A.3 not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and accordingly they were acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, and convicted A.1 under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, A.1 preferred the present appeal.
The learned Counsel for the accused mainly contended that P.W.2 in his Cross-examination stated that appellant is already having tractor and doing agricultural work, as such the question of harassment for additional dowry for purchase of new tractor does not arise. So also, P.W.2 stated that A.1 was having the tractor since 2008, whereas the marriage of the deceased with A.1 was performed on 16.05.2013, i.e, much before the marriage, appellant is having the tractor. P.W.4 did not specifically stated that appellant harassed the deceased for want of additional dowry. The trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, which was not corroborated with each other in respect of harassment and cruelty and there are so many discrepancies in their evidence and thus requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
Heard arguments of both the Counsel and perused the entire evidence on record.
Prosecution examined the mother of the deceased as P.W.1 and she reiterated the contents of the complaint. In her Cross-examination, she stated that A.1 and her daughter were residing in a rented house belonging to L.W.4/P.W.3 and A.2 and A.3 were residing in their village. They have also examined maternal uncle of the deceased i.e., Scribe of the complaint as P.W.2 and he supported the version of P.W.1. Both of them stated that on 01.01.2015, deceased telephoned to P.W.1 and informed that accused persons were harassing her for additional dowry and thus P.W.1 promised them to pay the amount at the time of Sankranthi Festival, but the said fact was not mentioned in the complaint given at the earliest point of time. P.W.2 stated that accused is having tractor compressor since 2008.
P.W.3 is the owner of the house, in which deceased and A.1 were residing. He stated that previously A.1 and deceased were residing at Khazipally village and he rented his house to A.1 eight months prior to the incident. A.2 and A.3 were frequently visiting the house of A.2. Occasionally, A.1 and deceased were quarrelling with each other regarding the additional dowry. Sometimes, he went and warned them to vacate the house. He stated that about one year back A.1 went out of his duty at about 4 P.M. On that day, at about 6 P.M, he found the motor bike of A.1, parked outside the house. At that time, he telephoned to A.1 to keep his vehicle inside the house in order to close the gate and A.1 replied that he will come within 15 minutes. Even then A.1 did not come, as such again he telephoned to A.1, but his mobile was switched off. Then he went near to the portion of A.1 and found that door was locked from outside and then he went near to the window, and saw that deceased was hanging. When he raised hue and cry, neighbours came there and with the help of L.Ws.6 and 8, doors were broken. They thought that deceased was alive, as such they laid her down on the floor inside the room and then they found that she was dead and immediately he informed the same to P.W.1 and others.
P.W.4 is the Panchayat elder. He stated that at the time of marriage, parents of the deceased gave four lakhs to A.1 towards dowry and they lived happily for a period of three months. Later, accused sent back the deceased to her parent’s house to bring more dowry and it was informed to him by P.W.1. Subsequently, a Panchayat was held in the presence of L.W.11 and himself. In the said Panchayat, they convinced the deceased and sent her to the house of accused. Again, when accused started harassing the deceased for payment of loan amount taken for the tractor, P.W.1 and L.W.2 gave Rs.50,000/-to the accused. Later, after 4 or 5 months, accused again started harassing the deceased, at that time P.W.1 gave Rs.20,000/- to the accused. Again, when accused started harassing the deceased, P.W.1 promised to pay the amount at the time of Sankranthi festival. Later, she came to know that deceased had died by hanging due to harassment made by the accused. It was suggested to him that deceased committed suicide due to mental imbalance, but he denied it. He also stated that A.2 and A.3 were living separately at Khajipally, but they are frequently visiting the house of the accused.
P.W.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and the same was marked under Ex.P2 and rough sketch under Ex.P3. P.W.6 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama, which was marked under Ex.P4. He stated that deceased died 1½ year after her marriage with A.1. P.W.7 is the Tahsildar of R.C.Puram. As the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, he conducted inquest panchanama under Ex.P4. P.W.8 is the Assistant Professor in Gandhi Medical College, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave Postmortem examination. He stated that cause of death was due to hanging. P.W.9 is the S.D.P.O of Sangareddy. Initially he conducted investigation and later handed over the file to L.W.22 for further investigation. He has not collected any receipt from P.W.1 regarding payment of loan amount for the tractor purchased under loan. P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who received written complaint on 03.01.2015, and registered a case in Cr.No.1 of 2015 under Section 304-B of IPC and issued F.I.R, which was marked under Ex.P6. He stated that P.W.1 came to police station along with the written complaint. P.W.11 is the S.D.P.O at R.C.Puram, he stated that he arrested the accused on 13.01.2015 and on interrogation, accused admitted his guilt and thus he produced him before JFCM, Narsapur for Judicial custody. A.2 and A.3 surrendered before the Court and released on bail. After receiving P.M.E report and all material papers, he filed Charge sheet against the accused under Section 304-B IPC. Basing on the said evidence, the trial Court acquitted A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and convicted A.1 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.
The main contention of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.3 harassed the daughter of P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry for purchase of compressor tractor, but P.W.2 clearly stated that accused is having tractor since 2008. Even P.W.1 in her Cross-examination stated that accused is already having a tractor and doing agricultural work. The marriage of the deceased with A.1 was performed on 16.05.2013 i.e., 5 years after the purchase of the tractor. The Investigation Officer has not collected any receipt from P.W.1 or P.W.2 regarding the payment of loan amount for the tractor, as they stated that they paid Rs.50,000/- and again Rs.20,000/- for tractor. As A.2 and A.3 residing separately, they were already found not guilty and it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
No doubt, deceased committed suicide within 7 years from the date of marriage. The marriage was performed on 16.05.2013 and she committed suicide on 02.01.2015. P.W.3 is the owner of the rented premises of A.1 and deceased. He was residing in the ground floor and rented the portion which is in the first floor. Even if he might have heard altercation between parties, there is no possibility for him to hear that on what ground A.1 and deceased were picking up quarrel. He never stated that deceased informed him that A.1 was insisting her for additional dowry. As per his evidence, when he went to first floor, he found that door was locked from outside and he peeped through window and found deceased was hanging. Immediately, he, along with others, broke open the door and laid her down on the floor, thinking that she was alive, but by that time she was dead. It is not the case of the prosecution that she locked the door from inside and hanged herself, but the prosecution from the beginning contended that she committed suicide from by hanging. It is for the prosecution to prove whether it is suicide or homicide, but they failed to do so, even as per the Postmortem report, she died due to hanging. P.W.4 is the Panchayat elder, who stated about the demand of dowry by A.1 and his parents. He stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 paid Rs.50,000/-and Rs.20,000/- in their presence towards loan amount of the tractor. The main contradiction in the evidence is that though P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that on 01.01.2015, deceased telephoned to P.W.1 and stated that accused were harassing her for more dowry and she promised them to pay the amount on the eve of Sankranthi festival, they have not stated that crucial factor in their complaint. In the inquest report, it was clearly mentioned that there are several injuries caused on the private parts of the deceased, but the Doctor who conducted Postmortem has not stated anything regarding the injuries. In the trial Court it was argued that deceased was having mental depression, as she was not having stable mental condition, she committed suicide, but it was ruled out by the trial Court and convicted A.1. There are several lapses in the investigation and examination of witnesses was not done properly, but in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any benefit of doubt, it should be extended to the accused. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned VIII - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, against A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, by judgment dated 02.03.2017 in S.C.No.194 of 2015, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for offence under Section 304-B of IPC and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case and his bail bonds stands cancelled.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.