1
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.
Present: Sri B.Syamsunder,
Judge, Family Court -cum-
V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, FAC: X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.
Monday, the Thirty first (31st) day of August, Two thousand fifteen.
Sessions Case No. 318 of 2013
P.R.C.No. 9 of 2013 on the file of III Addl.J.M.F.C., Tirupati.
Complainant:-
State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, West Sub-Division, Tirupati. (Crime No. 195/2012 of West Police Station, Tirupati)
Accused:-
1.Alluri Nagendra, age 21 years, S/o. A.Murali Achary, Kamsali by caste, R/o. D.No.4-4-727 (Old), D.No.556 (New), Nehru Nagar, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District.
2.Alluri Guna, age 40 years, W/o. Alluri Murali Achary, Kamsali by caste, 4th Line, Ranipet, Gudur Town, Nellore District.
3.Alluri Murali Achary, age 48 years, S/o. Late A.Venkata Subbachary, Kamsali by caste, 4th Line, Ranipet, Gudur Town, Nellore District.
PRC: P.R.C.No. 9 of 2013 of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.
Prosecution conducted by:- Sri K.Suryanadha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, Tirupati.
Accused defended by:- Sri T.M.Chayapathy, Advocate for Accused No.1. Sri N.Manohar, Advocate for Accused Nos.2 and 3.
Charges :U/Sec. 304-B, 498-A Indian Penal Code and u/Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court : Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2
Sentence or Order:In the result,Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of six months as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5, which are non-valuable properties, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is completed.
This case came up before me on 13-08-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Suryanadha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, Sri T.M.Chayapathy, Advocate for Accused No.1, and of Sri N.Manohar, Advocate
for Accused Nos.2 and 3, and upon hearing both sides, and upon perusing the
material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 to 3 stands charged under Sections 304-B, 498-A Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter called “IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act 1961, for causing dowry death of Alluri Lokeswari (hereinafter called “deceased”) at 6.00 P.M. on 10.10.2012 in the house of accused at Tirupati.
2. The admitted facts of the case in brief are that Accused No.1 is son of
Accused No.2, Accused No.3, and marriage of Accused No.1 with deceased took place on 03.05.2012 in a temple at Gudur town of Nellore District. P.W.1
K.Lalithamma is the mother, L.W.2 K.Ramu is father, P.W.2 K.Murali is elder brother, P.W.5 is material uncle of the deceased.
3. The facts which are no longer in dispute before me, in short, are that the deceased committed suicide by hanging at about 6.00 OP.M. on 10.10.2012 at the house of Accused No.1.
4. The matrix of Prosecution’s case is as under:-
The marriage of Accused No.1 with deceased took place on 03.05.2012 in the presence of elders as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the community in a temple of Gudur town of Nellore District. It is alleged that at the time of marriage Accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded parents of the deceased to pay dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- and present 15 sovereigns of gold and then they agreed and at the time of marriage they paid cash of Rs.50,000/- as a dowry and presented 10 3 sovereigns of gold. After that, Accused No.1 and deceased resided at Gudur for about two months and at that time Accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded the deceased to get balance dowry amount and 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her parents.
Thereafter, Accused No.1 shifted his residence from Gudur to Tirupati and put up family in Nehru Nagar at Tirupati town. After that, deceased went to her parents house and informed them that Accused No.1 beat her on demand of balance of dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, for which they told deceased that they would arrange money and advised deceased to maintain patience and adjust with Accused No.1. While so, one week prior to the death of deceased, she came to her parents house and informed them that Accused Nos.1 to 3 harassing her in different types for the sake of balance of dowry and gold, during that period deceased stayed at her parents house for a day and then parents of deceased adjusted a sum of Rs.25,000/- and gave the same to deceased and sent her to the house of Accused No.1 by duly informing him. Then, on 10.10.2012 at about 3.00 P.M. P.W.8 M.Damu informed about the quarrel in the house of deceased and requested P.W.5 D.Jushendra who is maternal uncle of the deceased to visit the house to pacify the matter. Accordingly, P.W.5 along with L.W.10
V.Manoharamma visited the house of deceased at about 4.30 P.M. on 10.10.2012, made enquiries about the quarrel wherein deceased informed them that Accused
No.1, Accused No.2 harassing her to get remaining balance of dowry amount and gold, for which, they advised Accused No.1, Accused No.2 not to harass the deceased and P.W.5 told them that he would see that the balance amount arranged through the parents of the deceased. Then, they left the house of accused at about 5.00 P.M. on that day. At about 6.00 P.M. on 10.10.2012 deceased went inside her bedroom in her in-laws house, closed the doors and hanged herself with a saree due to harassment and ill-treatment of accused for the sake of balance of dowry amount and gold ornaments. On hearing the cries of Accused No.2, the neighbours came there, broke open the doors of the room and then Accused No.1, who rushed to the spot, removed the deceased from ceiling and taken her to Government
Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment, where the Medical Officer examined her and declared that she was brought dead. The said incident came to know by the 4 parents of deceased and P.W.2 through P.W.5, who came to the hospital and found deceased died. After that, P.W.1 presented a report before police on 10.10.2012 at 10.15 P.M. P.W.13 S.I. of Police registered the case and informed the same to
P.W.14 Sub Divisional Police Officer, who took up further investigation. At the request of police, P.W.12 Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 11.10.2012 in the presence of panchayatdars and recorded the statements of relatives of the deceased. During the course of investigation, P.W.14
Sub Divisional Police Officer visited the scene of offence, prepared Observation
Report, drafted Rough sketch and recorded the Statements of witnesses. On 13.10.2012 Accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and sent to Court for judicial remand.
P.W.6 Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Preliminary Postmortem Report and after receiving F.S.L. Report about viscera contents gave Final Opinion that deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging. After usual investigation, police filed Charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3.
5. The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, has taken the case on file under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions with an opinion that offences alleged against accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Chittoor, has made over the case to this Court for trial.
6. On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides, my learned predecessor has framed Charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and under
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused Nos.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. On behalf of Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.
5
8. After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances available on record in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which, they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no Defence evidence. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have stated that after the death of deceased, her parents demanded them to pay money, as they refused, they foisted false case against them.
9. I have heard both sides.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Prosecution argued that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with medical evidence shows that deceased died due to hanging within seven years of her marriage with Accused No.1.
He contended that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.11 supports the contention of Prosecution that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased, and on that ground, Accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed the deceased.
He prays to convict the accused.
11. The learned Advocates for accused contended that except general allegations, no material available on record to show that accused demanded
additional dowry from the deceased, on that ground they harassed the deceased.
They argued that P.W.5, who is no other than the maternal uncle of the deceased, did not support the case of Prosecution, who said to be arranged marriage, and he categorically admitted in his evidence that, as deceased frequently visiting her parents house which was informed by Accused No.1 to P.W.8 Damu who inturn informed to him, but P.W.1 has not taken any necessary steps to change the attitude of the deceased, the said evidence shows that there was no harassment on the part of Accused No.1 and admittedly Accused No.2, Accused No.3 are residents of Gudur town of Nellore District. They submits that P.W.14 Investigation Officer not examined the neighbours of the accused and the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 clearly suggest that they had no capacity to pay dowry to accused as admittedly marriage performed in Gudur at the expenses of accused. They also submitted that
P.W.1, P.W.2 have not stated either in Ex.P-1 or in their statements before police 6 that they borrowed amount from P.W.7 to pay the same to Accused No.1.
They relied on following precedent law:-
1. Alakunta Yadaiah Vs. State of A.P. 2012 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 140 (AP).
2. Major Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2015 Crl.L.J. 2593 (SC).
They prays to acquit the accused.
12. Now, the POINT for determination, is:-
Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 304-B IPC and u/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 ?
13. POINT:- The case of the Prosecution is that Accused Nos.1 to 3 have received dowry of Rs.50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage of
Accused No.1 with deceased and thereafter harassed the deceased on demand of balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- and 5 sovereigns of gold ornaments, due to that, deceased committed suicide by hanging on 10.10.2012 at 6.00 P.M. at the house of Accused No.1 in Tirupati which is within seven years of her marriage with
Accused No.1.
14. To prove its case, Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14.
15. P.W.1 K.Lalitha mother of deceased, has stated on oath that marriage of deceased with Accused No.1 performed in a Marriage Hall at Gudur town of Nellore
District on 03.05.2012 and at that time accused demanded dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold, but they offered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- cash and 10 sovereigns of gold, which they agreed, and then she paid Rs.50,000/- and promised to pay the remaining amount along with 5 sovereigns of gold later. She has stated that after the marriage deceased and Accused Nos.1 to 3 stayed at Gudur for two months and thereafter shifted the house to Nehru Nagar at Tirupati. She deposed that her daughter used to inform her that Accused Nos.1 to 3 were harassing her, beating her on demand of additional dowry, for which she mediated and sent the deceased to the house of accused. It is the contention of P.W.1 that one week prior to the incident deceased came to her house, stayed for one day and then they secured Rs.25,000/- and sent her to the house of accused along with her second 7 daughter to inform accused that remaining amount will be adjusted shortly. She deposed that on 08.10.2012 P.W.8 Damu, a relative of accused, called her over a phone and told her that accused harassing the deceased and asked her to adjust the remaining amount immediately, and after that, she asked her younger brother
P.W.4 to mediate and pacify Accused Nos.1 to 3 and then P.W.4 went to accused, tried to pacify accused, but the situation remained the same. While so, on 10.10.102 at about 6.00 P.M. P.W.4 called her over a phone and informed that deceased attempted to commit suicide by hanging and she was admitted in Ruia
Hospital, due to that, she went to the hospital along with her husband, son and other relatives, where doctor informed them that her daughter was died. P.W.1 has stated that Accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for the death of her daughter and then she lodged a report before police on the same day at 10.00 P.M. which was prepared by one Lakshmaiah as per her dictation. In the Cross-examination, she admitted that Accused Nos.1 to 3 were residents of Gudur town prior to the marriage and denied the suggestion that Accused No.2, Accused No.3 never resided at Tirupati and stated that she does not know door number or street name where
Accused Nos.1 to 3 have resided at Tirupati. She also admitted that she does not know name of the owner of accused’s house and wherefrom accused are coming to attend the Court. She categorically stated that two months after the marriage, accused and deceased resided at Nellore peacefully and she does not know whether
Accused No.1 alone came and set up house at Tirupati on request of her daughter.
It is the contention of P.W.1 that one Subashini, relative of accused, informed her that Accused Nos.1 to 3 taken a house at Tirupati, which she has not stated in
Ex.P-1 Report that Accused No.2, Accused No.3 also resided at Tirupati. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.P-1 that accused have demanded
Rs.1,50,000/- as a dowry and agreed for Rs.1,00,000/- and she has not filed any bills showing the purchase of gold to deceased at the time of her marriage. She categorically admitted that marriage expenses were borne by accused and they handed over cash to Accused No.2 in the house of Subashini in the presence of elders and handing over gold is recorded in the video which she is having, not produced before the Court. P.W.1 admitted that her daughter did not wear gold 8 jewellery presented to her on the date of marriage though admitted that gold jewelleries of her daughter i.e., gold chain and ear studs are in her custody. She also admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P-1 that she borrowed amount from
P.W.7 Santhamma and paid the same to accused. She denied the suggestion that she abused Accused No.2 as Accused No.1 pledged gold given to him, due to that,
Accused No.1 did not visit his house and Accused No.1 shifted family as they assured him that they would provide employment as N.M.R. at T.T.D. She further denied the suggestion that her daughter used to visit their house without intimating
Accused No.1 though admitted that P.W.5 Jushendra who is her brother and
Manoharamma arranged the marriage between deceased and Accused No.1. She also denied the suggestion that as P.W.5 and Manoharamma asked the deceased to change her behavior, being hurt and due to depression deceased committed suicide.
16. P.W.2 K.Murali, elder brother of deceased, has stated that marriage of
Accused No.1 and deceased took place on 03.05.2012 at Gudur town and at that time they gave dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold to accused and then deceased came twice to their house, informed them that accused were beating her and harassing her on demand of additional dowry. He also deposed about they came to know about the incident on10.10.2012 through P.W.8 Damu and then they went to hospital where they found deceased died and lodged a report before police.
In the Cross-examination, he admitted that after the marriage deceased resided at
Gudur for two months and accused performed the marriage and two months after the marriage deceased and accused resided at Maszid Street, Nehru Nagar,
Tirupati, but he does not know the door number and name of the owner of the house. He categorically admitted that his family lives by doing cooli work and also
Accused No.1 to Accused No.3 live by doing cooli work and he does not know details of the jewellery presented to deceased at the time of marriage. He admitted that Accused No.1 came to Tirupati and was doing Carpentry work. He denied the suggestion that his sister committed suicide having depressed when P.W.5 9
Jushendra and Manoharamma questioned her conduct and asked her to change her ways.
17. P.W.3 K.Kalavathi, nearby resident of accused, has deposed that all accused were residing at Nehru Nagar, near Jyothi theatre, besides Maszid,
Tirupati. She has stated that on 10.10.2012 at about 6.00 or 6.30 P.M. she heard cries from the house of deceased and also heard banging on the door, then her husband went there and she also followed and then Accused No.1 and her husband brought the deceased down, called Auto rickshaw where the deceased was shifted to hospital. She has stated that there might have been disputes as they were newly married, about jewellery and money and there were one or two quarrels and she came to know that deceased died because of money and gold. In the Cross- examination, she admitted that she does not know family affairs of Accused No.1 and she had no much acquaintance with all accused and they never told about any quarrels. She categorically admitted that Accused No.1 taken the deceased to the hospital immediately after opening the door and Accused No.1 and deceased resided in the house for two months prior to the incident. She also admitted that she had no personal knowledge about the affairs of Accused No.1 or the deceased.
18. P.W.4 K.Kamalamma, another nearby resident of accused’s house, has deposed about deceased committing suicide by hanging and stated that there were quarrels between Accused No.1 and deceased, but she does not know the cause of the quarrels. She also stated that on the date of incident also there were quarrels, due to that, deceased committed suicide by hanging. In the Cross-examination, she admitted that on the date of incident, quarrel took place as Lokeswari (deceased) went to her mother’s house without the permission of Accused No.1, due to that, deceased committed suicide.
19. P.W.5 D.Jushendra, maternal uncle of deceased, who said to be arranged the marriage and mediated disputes between accused and deceased, has deposed that he came to know about giving dowry of Rs.50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage of Accused No.1 with the deceased, but it was not given in his presence. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that marriage alliance fixed by his co- 10 brother by name Damu (P.W.8), and after the marriage, Accused No.1 and deceased stayed at Gudur for two months and then they shifted to Tirupati. He also deposed that there were small quarrels between Accused No.1 and deceased, as deceased left the house without intimating Accused No.1, due to that, deceased committed suicide. The said witness is declared as hostile witness by the
Prosecution, and in the Cross-examination, he admitted that deceased is his niece and accused are also his relatives. He denied the suggestion about giving of dowry to accused in his presence, and after that, accused harassed deceased on demand of additional dowry. He has stated that P.W.8 informed him over a phone that due to petty quarrels between Accused No.1 and deceased, the deceased has not taken food for 3 days and asked him to come and pacify the deceased. In the Cross- examination by learned Advocate for accused, he admitted that marriage expenses borne by accused and accused are living by doing cooli work. He categorically stated that Accused No.1 informed P.W.8 Damu that deceased left the house without intimating Accused No.1 and asked him to inform the same to P.W.1, due to that, quarrels took place due to the conduct of deceased and deposed that the incident would not have occurred if P.W.1 had intervened and made Lokeswari (deceased) to change her ways and P.W.1 did not come though informed her over a phone. He admitted that Accused No.2, Accused No.3 resides at Gudur.
20. P.W.6 Medical Officer has deposed about conducting autopsy over the dead body of deceased and found ligature mark on the neck and gave final opinion about cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia due to hanging. She also stated that stomach contains 300 grams semi digested food particles and deceased consumed food and water prior to her death.
21. P.W.7 C.Santhamma, nearby resident of P.W.1’s house, has stated that accused received dowry and gold from P.W.1 at the time of marriage of Accused
No.1 with the deceased and she came to know through P.W.1 that accused were harassing deceased on demand of balance of dowry amount. She has stated that at the request of P.W.1 she lent Rs.20,000/- in order to send deceased, which
P.W.1 repaid and again P.W.1 asked money from her stating that accused are 11 demanding dowry and she lent the money. In the Cross-examination, she admitted that no dowry was given in her presence though stated that she attended the marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased. She categorically stated that she does not have personal knowledge about the family affairs of the deceased and accused and she does not know the source of P.W.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold to the accused and she never visited the matrimonial house of the deceased.
22. P.W.8 M.Damu has deposed that he arranged marriage between Accused
No.1 and deceased and at the time of marriage Rs.50,000/- cash and 2 sovereigns of gold was presented to Accused No.1 and he does not know what was presented to deceased, and after the marriage, Accused No.1 and the deceased resided at
Gudur for two months and then shifted their residence to Tirupati. He deposed that he does not know cause for committing suicide by the deceased, which he came to know through his wife and he informed the same to P.W.5. The said witness is declared as hostile witness by the Prosecution and in the Cross-examination he admitted that he has stated before police that on 10.10.2012 when he returned to his house for lunch, he heard loud cries coming out from the house of Accused No.1 and then he went there and saw deceased and Accused No.2 shouting with each other and Accused No.2 asked him to call P.W.5 and speak to deceased. He also stated that he informed P.W.5 and one Manoharamma who came and spoke to deceased and told her to respect elders and not to quarrel with them and then left the place. It is the evidence of P.W.8 that on the same day at 6.00 P.M. Accused
No.2 shouting that deceased locked herself in the house and was not opening the doors, due to that, he went there and saw doors were locked, and then, neighbours came there, broke opened the doors and in the meanwhile Accused No.1 came and took the deceased to hospital for treatment. In the further Cross-examination, he categorically admitted that after the marriage deceased lived happily with Accused
Nos.1 to 3 and Accused No.1 shifted his resident to Tirupati as P.W.1 would show employment at Devasthanam. He also admitted that Rs.50,000/- given to Accused
Nos.1 to 3 spent for marriage expenses and Accused No.1 pledged two sovereigns 12 of gold gifted to him at the time of marriage, to discharge the debts incurred at the time of marriage, which, questioned by Accused No.1, and she abused Accused
No.3, due to that, disputes arose between Accused No.1 and P.W.1. He categorically admitted that Accused No.1 had informed him that deceased left the house without informing him when he went to attend work and asked him to mediate and then he asked his wife to call P.W.1 and then he requested
Manoharamma and P.W.5 to intervene and speak to deceased and P.W.1. He also admitted that disputes arose because of deceased used to left the house of Accused
No.1 without informing him and P.W.1 not pacified the situation and Accused No.2,
Accused No.3 are residing at Gudur. He categorically stated that he was residing opposite to the house of deceased.
23. P.W.9 T.Munendra Chetty has deposed that in his presence Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased wherein he signed as one of the panchayatdars.
24. P.W.10 K.Reddeppa also deposed that in his presence police have observed the scene of offence, seized saree and recorded his statement. In the
Cross-examination, he admitted that police have not called nearby residents of accused, due to that, he acted as a panchayatdar as Dy.S.P. called him when he was waiting for passengers near Jyothi theatre Auto Stand.
25. P.W.11 G.Somasekharachari has deposed about demand of dowry by
Accused Nos.1 to 3 at the time of marriage of Accused No.1 with deceased and with regard to quarrels between Accused No.1 and deceased and then parents of deceased paid Rs.25,000/- by borrowing amount from others and sent deceased to the house of accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he worked with the father of P.W.1’s husband and marriage expenses were borne by P.W.1 and the family of P.W.1 and the accused are daily wage labourers and he does not know who arranged the marriage between deceased and Accused No.1 and financial affairs of P.W.1’s family. He admitted that deceased committed suicide due to “Manasthapamu” which means disgusted with her life.
13
26. P.W.12 Tahsildar has deposed about conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the request of police and recording statements of P.W.1,
P.W.2, L.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.11.
27. P.W.13 the then S.I. of Police, has deposed about registering the case on a report lodged by P.W.1 on 10.10.2012 at 10.15 P.M. In the Cross-examination, he has admitted that it is not stated in Ex.A-1 that Rs.1,50,000/- was agreed to be paid, but only Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as dowry and it is not stated in the Ex.P-1 that Exs.A-1 to A-3 were residing at Nehru Nagar.
28. P.W.14, the then S.D.P.O., has deposed about visiting the scene of offence, recording the statements of witnesses and arrest of accused. In the Cross- examination, he admitted that he has not received any cassette or C.D. containing the video recording of the marriage and in the Charge sheet address of Accused
No.2, Accused No.3 is shown as residents of Gudur. He admitted that he has not examined the house owner of Accused No.1 and not seized any documents evidencing that all accused were residing as tenants in the said house. He further admitted that P.W.1 has not stated before him that accused demanded
Rs.1,50,000/-, but agreed to take Rs.1,00,000/- and then P.W.1 borrowed
Rs.25,000/- from P.W.7 Santhamma and paid the same to accused. He further admitted that he has not called any residents of Nehru Nagar near the scene of offence to act as mediators at the time of observation of the scene of offence and seizure of M.O.1 saree.
29. Before appreciating the evidence of above referred Prosecution
Witnesses, it would be beneficial to quote Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., which reads as under:- “ Section 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
14
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means –
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ” “ Section 304-B IPC - 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.”
30. It has been held in catena of decisions of higher Courts and also in the
Decisions relied on by learned Advocate for accused that to prove the offence u/S.304-B IPC, the Prosecution shall establish that –
1.Death of woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
2.Such death should have been 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 was for or in connection with the demand for dowry.
5.Such cruelty or harassment coupled with demand for dowry should be soon before her death.
15
31. The ingredients of cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C.
are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage i.e., divorce.
32. In Alakunta Yadaiah Vs. State of A.P. 2012 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 140 (AP) case referred supra, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that, when the demand of money not relating to dowry, not comes under Section 304-B I.P.C.
33. In Major Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2015 Crl.L.J. 2593 (SC) case referred supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, to prove offence under
Section 304-B I.P.C., the Prosecution should adduce evidence to show that soon
before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment and there
must always be proximal and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death.
34. In Tirath Kumar @ Raj Rani and another Vs. State of Haryana 2006 (1)
ALT (Crl.) 249 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, where there is no evidence that the husband of the deceased or her in-laws subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death, conviction liable to be set aside.
35. In Chowdam Bikshapathi and others Vs. State of A.P. 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 111 (A.P.) the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that, where the evidence of the parents of the deceased is vague regarding demand of dowry by the accused, dowry death held not proved.
36. In Maddur Thirupathi Reddy @ Surya Prakash Reddy @ Suri,
Appellant/Accused Vs. State of A.P., respondent, in Criminal Appeal No. 1862 of 2004, Judgment dated 10.02.2012, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that
Prosecution shall establish that accused demanded dowry soon before the death of the deceased and when all the witnesses made general allegations of harassment 16 on the part of accused and demand for dowry even though the Prosecution has examined the neighbours of the accused and the elder who has stated to have mediated, who turned hostile, in those circumstances, held that Prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. and accused is entitled for acquittal.
37. In Bhola Ram, Appellant, Vs. State of Punjab, Respondent, Criminal
Appeal No. 1022 of 2008, Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 11.11.2013, wherein it is held that Prosecution must establish that there was harassment on the part of accused on demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased and simply because parents are residing in the same house, in the absence of any specific allegations, it cannot be said that they also joined together and harassed the deceased on demand of additional dowry.
38. Bearing in mind above principles of law enunciated by Hon’ble higher
Courts, I shall examine the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. Though P.W.1,
P.W.2 have deposed that there was a demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- on the part of accused at the time of marriage of deceased with Accused No.1, admittedly they have not stated the same either in Ex.P-1 report or in their statements before police. Further, the family of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Accused Nos.1 to 3 are living by doing cooli work. It is admitted by P.W.1, P.W.2 that marriage was performed by accused in Gudur town of Nellore District. P.W.1, P.W.2 have not explained how they secured money to pay dowry to accused at the time of marriage when admittedly the accused borne the marriage expenses. Even it is presumed that some amount has been paid to accused at the time of marriage which said to be spent by them towards marriage expenses as per the evidence of P.W.8 M.Damu who was elder at the time of marriage. P.W.1 has categorically admitted that she has not stated in Ex.P-1 or in her Chief-examination that she borrowed amounts from P.W.7 Santhamma and paid the same to accused. P.W.1 admittedly not filed video cassette which was recorded at the time of marriage though she is in the custody of the same. P.W.14 Investigation Officer not seized any positive photos and video cassette from P.W.1, P.W.2. P.W.1 strangely deposed that though they 17 presented gold ornaments, deceased did not wear the same on the date of marriage. P.W.1 also admitted that gold chain and ear studs of deceased are with her and not explained why and when she came into possession of the same. The said evidence of P.W.1 supports the contention of Defence that Accused No.1 pledged two grams of gold presented to him at the time of marriage, due to that,
P.W.1 quarreled with him and abused Accused No.3, due to that, Accused No.1 not visiting the house of P.W.1, which is admitted by P.W.8 Damu who is close relative of both sides. Though there is no dispute about the unnatural death of deceased within seven days of her marriage, the fact remains is that P.W.1 categorically admitted that about two months Accused No.1 and deceased resided at Gudur happily which is contra to her version stated in Ex.P-1. Further more, as admitted by P.W.14 Investigation Officer, Accused No.2, Accused No.3 are shown as residents of Gudur, but P.W.1 deposed that they also resided at Tirupati and admitted that she does not know atleast Street name where Accused Nos.1 to 3 resided at Tirupati. P.W.1, P.W.2 have made allegations of harassment of deceased by accused on demand of additional dowry as they are mother and brother of the deceased. It is admitted by P.W.1 that P.W.5 who is her younger brother mediated the disputes who deposed that the disputes between deceased and Accused No.1 is due to deceased frequently visiting her parents’ house without the permission of Accused No.1 and he categorically stated that if P.W.1 intervened, incident would not have been happened. He further deposed that P.W.1 did not come though he informed her over a phone with regard to quarrel between Accused
No.1 and deceased. The evidence of Prosecution Witnesses P.Ws.5 and 8 said to be elders, arranged the marriage, who have not supported the case of Prosecution with regard to harassment of deceased by the accused on demand of dowry.
Admittedly P.W.7 lending money to P.W.1 is not deposed by P.W.1 and also not stated in Ex.P-1 report. Even otherwise, P.W.1 deposed that he borrowed amount of Rs.25,000/- from P.W.7, whereas it is the contention of P.W.7 that she lent
Rs.20,000/- at the first instance, which she repaid, and again, she lent money, but she has not mentioned what amount she lent to P.W.1 at the second occasion, which is not deposed by P.W.1. P.W.11 admittedly worked under father of P.W.1’s 18 husband, who is a chance witness, as his name is not referred by P.W.1 either in
Ex.P-1 or in her evidence and he is also not acted as mediator with regard to the disputes between deceased and Accused No.1 . The medical evidence and the evidence of Tahsildar only shows that deceased died due to hanging within seven years of her marriage, but there is no convincing evidence to show that accused harassed deceased on demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- soon before her death. The elders i.e., P.W.5 and P.W.8 who said to be mediated between Accused No.1 and deceased have not supported the case of Prosecution and their contention is that they advised deceased to respect elders and not visit her parents house without informing Accused No.1 and asked P.W.1 to come and pacify, which she failed to do so, due to that, deceased committed suicide. It is not the contention of P.W.1,
P.W.2 that in their presence accused have demanded deceased to get additional dowry and they also not deposed that Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to their house and demanded them to pay balance of dowry amount. The circumstances brought on record in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, which clearly suggest that Accused
No.1 and deceased were alone residing at Tirupati, whereas Accused No.2, Accused
No.3 were residing at Gudur town of Nellore District. In those circumstances, it is not known how Accused No.2, Accused No.3 also alleged to have joined and harassed deceased on demand of additional dowry. P.W.5, P.W.8, who said to be mediated the dispute, have not deposed any harassment on the part of accused on demand of additional dowry. One of the elders by name Manoharamma, who acted as a mediator at the time of marriage, not examined by police, and P.W.14 not recorded the statement of owner of Accused No.1’s house. The neighbourers, who were examined as P.W.3, P.W.4 have not stated any harassment on the part of accused on demand of additional dowry. It is the evidence of P.W.4, a neighbourer of Accused No.1 that on that date of incident quarrel occurred as deceased went to her mother’s house without the permission of Accused No.1 and as a result of the quarrel she committed suicide.
39. The Prosecution though established that the death of deceased occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage 19 with A-1, but failed to prove that accused subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. The Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
40. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 235(1)
Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The bail bonds of
Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall continue for a period of six months as per Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5, which are non-valuable properties, are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is completed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day August, 2015.
Judge, Family Court -cum-
V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, FAC: X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Prosecution:For Defence:-
P.W.1:K.Lalitha -Nil- P.W.2:K.Murali P.W.3:K.Kalavathi P.W.4:K.Kamalamma P.W.5:D.Jushendra P.W.6:Dr.K.Mamatha, Professor, Forensic Medicine Dept. P.W.7:C.Santhamma P.W.8:M.Damu P.W.9:P.Munendra Shetty P.W.10:K.Reddappa P.W.11:G.Somasekharachari P.W.12:B.Nagarjuna Reddy, Tahsildar. P.W.13:R.Vinod Kumar, S.I.of Police. P.W.14:K.Malyadri, S.D.P.O.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
Ex.P-1:10-10-2012: Complaint given by K.Lalithamma i.e., P.W.1. Ex.P-2:11-10-2012: Postmortem Certificate of A.Lokeswari. Ex.P-3:24-01-2013: F.S.L. Report of A.Lokeswari Ex.P-4:18-04-2013: Final Opinion of Cause of Death pertaining to deceased Alluru Lokeswari. Ex.P-5:11-10-2012: Inquest report of deceased A.Lokeswari.
20
Ex.P-6:11-10-2012: Scene observation Mahazarnama, prepared by P.W.14 at 8-15 A.M. Ex.P-7:11-10-2012: Statement of K.Lalithamma recorded by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Ex.P-8:11-10-2012: Statement of K.Ramu recorded by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Ex.P-9:11-10-2012: Statement of K.Murali recorded by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Ex.P-10:11-10-2012: Statement of D.Jushendra recorded by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Ex.P-11:11-10-2012: Statement of G.Somasekhar recorded by the Tahsildar, Tirupati (Urban) Mandal. Ex.P-12:10-10-2012: F.I.R. in Crime No.195/2012 of Tirupati West P.S. Ex.P-13:11-10-2012: Rough Sketch prepared by P.W.14. Ex.P-14:--: Photographs of scene of offence and the dead body of deceased. Ex.P-15:11-10-2012: Police Proceedings prepared by P.W.14 at 8.00 P.M. Ex.P-16:11-10-2012: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of D.Rushendra. Ex.P-17:14-10-2012: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of M.Damu.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:- -Nil-.
Material Objects marked:
M.O.1:Yellow coloured polyster Saree with flower design. M.O.2:Orange coloured flower design Nighty. M.O.3:Orange coloured Blouse. M.O.4:Orange coloured Petty coat. M.O.5:Snuff coloured underwear.
Judge, FC-cum-V Addl.S.J.,
FAC: X Addl.S.J., TPT.