IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt. M. Madhuri,
Judge, Family Court
Cum III Additional Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
Tuesday, this the 22nd day of February, 2022
SESSIONS CASE No.136/2016
Between :
State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram. … Complainant. And :
(1) Malla Kumar, S/o Tatababu, Age 27 years, Gavara by Caste, Main Road Near one way Traffic Junction, Running a cell repairing shop at RTC Complex, S.Kota.
(2) Malla Tatababu, S/o late Satyam, Age 49 years, Gavara by Caste, Vegetable business, Main Road, near one way Traffic Junction, S.Kota.
(3) Malla Atchayyamma, W/o Tatababu, Age 46 years, Gavara by caste, Vegetable Business, Main road, near one way Traffic Junction, S.Kota.
(4) Alla Kameswari, W/o Apparao, Age 42 years, Gavara by Caste, Vegetable Business, Mandalapalem, Kothavalasa Mandal.
(5) Yalapu Dhanalakshmi, W/o Sathibabu, Age 36 years, Gavara by Caste, Kotha road, near Bhavaninagar Village, Boddavaram Panchayati, S.Kota Mandal. … Accused.
This case coming on 03.02.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor, for complainant and of
Sri Ch. Rambabu and Sri Y.P.V.R. Murthy, Advocates for the accused
Nos.1 to 5 and having stood over for consideration to this date, this
Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram, filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code 2 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 (hereinafter referred as “I.P.C.” for the sake of convenience) and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as “D.P.
Act” for the sake of convenience), in Crime No.4/2015 of
Srungavarapukota (Hereinafter referred as “S.Kota”) Police Station.
2. The provenance of the case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the charge sheet in nutshell is as follows :
A-2 and A-3 are the parents, A-4 and A-5 are the maternal aunts of A-1. A-1 to A-3 are residents of S.Kota, A-4 is resident of
Mangalapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal, and A-5 is the resident of
Bhavaninagar Village of S.Kota Mandal. On 04.01.2015 ati about 8-00 p.m., the deceased Lavanya came to Police Station and lodged a written report alleging that on 26.3.2010 her marriage was solemnized with one Mohan of Visakhapatnam, but due to differences they took divorce through Court of Law; that thereafter, on 29.5.2013 her marriage was again solemnized with A-1. After one month, all the accused started harassing her both physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-; on that her parents raised a dispute before the elders, but later her husband gave a cool drink mixed something and since then she has been suffering from skin disease, and from May, 2014 she became sick. Her health was deteriorated and she was infected to her both legs and the Doctors, who treated her informed that her both kidneys were damaged and there is need to do operation and that she will survive only for few months. Therefore, discharged from the Hospital on 31.12.2014, since then she is staying with her parents; that though, she was treated at
King George Hospital (hereinafter referred as “K.G.H.”), Visakhapatnam, neither her husband, nor her in-laws ever visited her in the Hospital.
Her husband and in-laws spent away the dowry amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and her husband pledged 9 tulas of gold articles. Therefore, on 3 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 03.01.2015 a panchayat was convened in the house of Neelamsetty
Ramakrishna, but in the said Panchayat, her husband and in-laws demanded that if they register a house and Ac.1-00 cents of land in the name of her husband, then only they will take her to their house.
2(a).Basing on her said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
S.Kota Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.4/2015 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and investigated into and during the course of investigation, he examined her and also other witnesses and recorded their statements . While so, on 09.01.2015 at 10-00 a.m., her mother
Adari Padma came to the Police Station, and lodged another report contending that she performed the marriage of her daughter Lavanya (deceased) on 29.5.2013 with A-1; that at that time as demanded by
A-1 to A-5, she gave Rs.2,50,000/- and 15 tulas of gold articles towards dowry and Rs.35,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams. Later her daughter lived with her husband and her in-laws, but subsequently her son-in-law (A-1) separated from his parents and stayed with her daughter, sold away her gold articles and that in May, 2014 A-1 forced her to consume cool drink mixed with some poisonous substance.
Therefore, the health of her daughter deteriorated, which effected on her lungs and kidneys and died on 08.01.2015 at about 10-00 p.m.
2(b).Basing on her report, the Sub-Inspector of Police added the
Section 304-B of I.P.C., to the already registered F.I.R., and filed memo together with original complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
S.Kota.
2(c).The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram, S.Srinivas took up investigation, gave requisition to the Tahsildar, S.Kota for conducting inquest, who conducted the inquest in the presence of the panchayatdars and blood relatives,then the dead body was 4 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 photographed by a photographer and later the dead body was sent for inquest to the Community Health Center, S.Kota. The Sub-Divisional
Police Officer examined the witnesses, observed the scene of offence and got prepared the scene observation report with the help of the mediators and on 11.01.2015 he arrested A-1 to A-3 and sent them to
Judicial custody, subsequently his successor the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer Sri P. Venkata Ratnam took up further investigation, forwarded the viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and on 16.02.20215 arrested A-4 and A-5 and sent them to Judicial custody.
The Medical Officers, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased preserved viscera, issued Postmortem Certificate after getting the opinion from from the Forensic Science Laboratory that the deceased might have died of “Septicemia and Renal Failure”. Hence, the charge sheet.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S.Kota, before whom charge sheet is filed took cognizance against the accused 1 to 5 for the offences U/s.304-B, 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in PRC No.14/2015 and on appearance of the accused 1 to 5, furnished the copies of documents in compliance of
Sec.207 Cr.P.C., and after observing the formalities, originally this Case was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, by the Committal Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Srungavarapukota, on 21.3.2016 under Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C., for disposal in accordance with Law, and the same was numbered as
S.C.No.136/2016 and subsequently after framing the charge for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C., the record was re-transmitted to this Court on the basis of memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, dt.22.11.2010 in
S.L.O.P.No.33760. The District Court returned this record with a 5 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 direction to follow the instructions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The
Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram passed an order, dt.27.01.2020 and opined that the above said case attracts Sec.302 of IPC also and resubmitted the case to the Court of Session, Vizianagaram.
4. Upon receiving the case file and after appearance of
Accused 1 to 5 and on hearing both sides, Charges under Sections 304-
B, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the accused 1 to 5, and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. A schedule of the dates for examination of witnesses was fixed and process for compelling the witnesses was posted U/Sec.230
Cr.P.C.
6. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 are marked.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up L.W.3-
Malla Ganesh; L.W.5-Dadi Sanyasirao; L.W.6-Chadaram Mahesh; L.W.8-
Palamarasetti Ramakrishna; L.W.10-Kallepalli Venkata Laxmi, respectively and reported that the Prosecution evidence is closed.
8.After closure of evidence when it is found charged under
Section 320 of I.P.C., is not framed, again Charge under Section 320 of
I.P.C., is framed, read over and explained in Telugu. He denied the said charge and pleaded not guilty. However, both the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and defence counsel filed their respective memos that the evidence already on record is sufficient no additional evidence or re-examination or examination of witnesses is necessary.
9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused 1 to 5 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and 6 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 reported no defence evidence and stated that they were unnecessarily implicated in the case, whereas, A-4 and A-5 further stated that they are residing separately at a long distance from A-1 to A-3.
10.Heard both sides.
11.Now, the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts for the charges under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ?
Point:
12.
The case of the prosecution is that originally the Law is set into motion basing on Ex.P.1 report of the deceased Lavanya, who alleged that A-2 and A-3 are the parents, A-4 and A-5 are the maternal aunts of A-1. Originally the marriage of the deceased Lavanya was solemnized with one Mohan on 26.3.2010 and subsequently after taking divorce, again married A-1 on 29.5.2013. It may be a fact that the decree granting divorce was not filed before the Court, therefore, the
Investigation Officer was cross-examined on the lines there was no legal marriage. However, the accused have not denied about the marriage of A-1 with the deceased Lavanya on 29.5.2013 in the presence of the elders. Originally the Law set into motion that on 04.01.2015 basing on
Ex.P.1 report of the deceased Lavanya, basing on which Ex.P.14 F.I.R., was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, after her death on 08.01.2015 at 10-00 a.m., her mother gave Ex.P.2 report, basing on which the Sub-Inspector of Police filed Ex.P.15 altered memo
before the concerned Magistrate, incorporating Section 304-B of I.P.C.
13.P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that in the year 2010 she performed the marriage of her daughter with one 7 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
Mohan of Visakhapatnam, but it was ended in divorce. Subsequently, she performed her marriage again with A-1 on 29.05.2013. In that connection, she gave Rs.2,50,000/- dowry, Rs.35,000/- towards
Adapaduchu Lanchanams and 15 tulas of gold ornaments to A-1. She also gave Ac.1-20 cents of land and a house property situated opposite to Police Station to her daughter towards Pasupu Kunkuma; that after the marriage, A-1 and the deceased lived happily for three months.
Thereafter, A-1 to A-5 started demanding to sell away the said property and also started demanding additional dowry. When her daughter informed the same to her, she told that she will not serve the same, but will register the documents to the children after born to them. Her daughter in turn informed the same to the accused. Therefore, they started harassing. While so, on 03.01.2014 early hours A-1 and A-2 poured Kerosene on her, somehow she escaped and returned to her house and informed the same, then herself and her daughter went to the Police Station and also informed to the elders, on that the marriage elders convinced that they will settle the matter and why to register cases, on that they returned. Thereafter, her daughter stayed in her house for two months and then they raised a panchayat through elders
Adari Krishna, Malla Ganesh, Doddi Venkata Ramana, Dadi Sanyasi Rao and Polamarasetti Ramakrishna. On the advice of the elders, a separate house was taken for A-1 and the deceased at Polamarasetti
Street, and she used to pay the rents for the said house. Even then A-1 did not live with her properly, her daughter used to tell her that he is coming late night and harassing to bring money, but she used to convince her that the things will change. While so, in the month of July, 2014 the accused demanded to bring money and A-1 gave a cool drink by mixing poison, she consumed the same. On the next day morning, her daughter informed her over phone about giving cool drink and since 8 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 then she was not feeling well and getting burning sensation all over the body. Immediately she went to their house and took her to the Hospital at S.Kota, the Doctor gave medicines and injection, within two or three days her body was swollen, on that again she took her to the Hospital.
On the advice of the Doctor, Scan was conducted and the Doctors informed that her Kidneys, Lungs and Heart were spoiled and advised to take her to Vizianagaram for better treatment. At Vizianagaram also the Doctors informed the same and on their advice, she was shifted to
King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and there she took treatment for about one month as inpatient, thereupon the Doctors informed that there are no chances of her survival and discharged. While she was undergoing treatment at the Hospital, none of the accused visited her.
After discharge, again she raised a panchayat before the elders to send her to her in-laws house, but the accused did not attend. On the advice of the elders, when she took her to her in-laws house, they did not allow her to enter the house stating that she is not well and that they did not fulfill their demand for dowry and other lanchanams, on that they went to the Police Station and her daughter presented Ex.P.1 report before the Police, scribed by one Doni Janardhanarao (P.W.6) to her dictation.
The Police registered a case. On 08.01.2015 at about 10-00 p.m., her daughter died. Immediately on the next day morning she went to the
Police Station and presented Ex.P.2 report scribed by one P. Suribabu to her dictation. The Police then shifted the dead body to the Government
Hospital, where Inquest was conducted by the Tahsildar.
14.P.W.2-Adari Krishna is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and paternal uncle of the deceased. He also corroborated the evidence of
P.W.1 with regard to the marriage of the deceased Lavanya with A-1 about seven years prior to giving his evidence (his evidence was given on 06.04.2021). He is examined as an elder to the marriage, who 9 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 knows the facts about the case, but he turned hostile and deposed that he was not present at the time of negotiations for the marriage, but subsequently he came to know that there was an understanding to give
Rs.2,50,000/- dowry, 15 tulas of gold ornaments and Rs.35,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams, house property and Ac.1-00 cents of land. He further deposed that a document was written on Rs.100/- stamp paper in respect of the landed property to the effect that the said property will be given to the children born to the deceased and A-1. For two or three months after their marriage, they lived happily; that thereafter, the deceased approached him for delivery of possession of the landed property saying that they wanted to cultivate the land for themselves, but he advised her to approach her mother. Once or twice talks were held before himself and others as to disputes between A-1 and the deceased and they advised them to live together properly. He further deposed that during her last days, when she was not well, she came down to her parents house, but he stated he does not know the reasons for her ill-health and subsequently died due to ill-health.
However, he stated that when the deceased gave report to the Police, he accompanied her. He also deposed about his presence at the time of the inquest conducted by the Tahsildar.
15.P.W.3 is the caste elder and retired Head Constable of
Prohibition and Excise Department. He deposed that he attended the marriage of A-1 with the deceased and after the marriage, she used to live at her in-laws house at S.Kota; that three or four months they lived happily and thereafter disputes started between them; He also turned hostile and deposed that he does not know the details of the disputes; that subsequently P.W.1 and deceased Lavanya complained that he was sick, they were not providing proper food, on that he advised P.W.1 that she herself can provide treatment; that thereafter she got her treated 10 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 at Visakhapatnam; that for about a week they were at Visakhapatnam for treatment; that subsequently P.W.1 informed him that after treatment, when she took her daughter to her in-laws house, they did not allow her, on that when he sent message to held a meeting, A-1 to
A-3 did not respond. Therefore, he advised P.W.1 and her daughter to proceed as per their wish. Then they gave report to Police. While the investigation was pending, Lavanya died; that he saw her dead body at the house of P.W.1 and later Police shifted the dead body to the Hospital and he also deposed his presence during inquest.
16.P.W.4-Bammidi Ramayyamma is a resident of S.Kota and neighbour of P.W.1. She also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 as to the 1st marriage of Lavanya in the year 2010 and taking divorce and again marrying A-1 in the year 2013. She further corroborated P.W.1 that in connection with marriage, dowry of Rs.2,50,000/-, 15 tulas of gold ornaments, Rs.35,000/- Adapaduchu Lanchanams were given besides Ac.1-20 cents of land, a house property towards Pasupu
Kunkuma. It is her evidence that after the marriage, Lavanya lived happily for about two months at her in-laws house; that subsequently A- 1 to A-3 started harassing her for additional dowry. She deposed that in 2014 they douse her with kerosene, when she was running towards her parents house, she saw and when enquired she told that they demanded additional dowry, house and land to be transferred in the name of A-1, but P.W.1 refused to transfer stating that she will transfer in the name of the children to be born; that therefore, A-1 to A-3 poured kerosene on her. Thereafter, when the matter was placed before the elders, A-1 to A-3 confessed that they committed mistake and promised to look after her properly hereafter and took Lavanya to their house.
Then A-1 took a rented house at Polamarasetti street. P.W.1 provided all the provisions for their separate living. In respect of the same, during 11 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 night A-1 used to harass her. About 15 days after they started living in a separate house. On one day Lavanya came in the morning and informed P.W.1 that on the previous night A-1 mixed something in cool drink and gave to her and since then she was getting stomach ache.
When the same was informed by Lavanya to her mother, she also present, on that P.W.1 took her to the Hospital at S.Kota, but the
Doctors advised her to take her to Vizianagaram, from there she was again taken to Visakhapatnam to a Private Hospital. After providing treatment for two days, they advised them to take her to King George
Hospital, Visakhapatnam. After taking treatment one month in King
George Hospital, Visakhapatnam as an inpatient, the Doctors discharged her saying that there were no hopes for her survival. She deposed that the Doctors told due to administering poisonous substance, her organs were damaged. On 3rd, P.W.1, herself and
Lavanya approached the elders, then the elders called A-1 to A-3 informed unless the property is transferred in their name, they will not allow Lavanya to their house and left the panchayat. Then the elders advised to approach the Police. On 4th Lavanya gave report to the
Police. On 8th at about 10-00 p.m., she died at the house of P.W.1. On the next day morning P.W.1 gave a report to the Police. She also deposed about her presence during inquest.
17.P.W.5 J.Rama Devi who was also a resident of the same locality of P.W.4 at the relevant time, corroborated the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 4 about the marriage of Lavanya in 2010 with a person of
Visakhapatnam and it was ended in divorce, later again she was married to A-1 in the year 2013 and she attended their marriage; that she further corroborated their evidence as to giving dowry of
Rs.2,50,000/-, 15 tulas of gold, Rs.35,000/- towards Adapaduchu
Lanchanams, a house and landed property. It is her evidence that the 12 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 house property and landed property were kept in the name of be born children of Lavanya. After the marriage, two months Lavanya and A-1 lived happily, later Lavanya informed that A-1 to A-3 are demanding to transfer the property in her name instead of in the name of to be born children; that she frequently used to come to the house of her mother and used to inform the same by weeping, on one day in the year 2014 she saw crowd on the road near their house; that when she went there found that Lavanya was running from her in-laws house and told that they poured kerosene for not transferring the property; that thereafter, the matter was placed before the elders. A-1 to A-3 attended the said
Panchayat and the elders advised them to look after her properly; that thereafter, A-1 and Lavanya took a separate house at Polamarasetti street; that P.W.1 used to pay the rent, but there also they did not lead peaceful life. Thereafter, on one day she came to know through her mother stating that she took cool drink given by her husband; that from then onwards she is getting burning sensation, then P.W.1 took her to the Hospital at s.Kota; that as per the advice of the Doctors she was taken to a Private Hospital at Visakhapatnam, there she was treated as an inpatient for about one month, then the Doctors advised that there are no chances of her survival and discharged. She along with P.W.1 took Lavanya to her in-laws house, but they did not allow her stating that they cannot look after her. Therefore, she gave report to Police.
Within two or three days she died and thereafter, another report was lodged.
18.P.W.6 is the scribe of Ex.P.1 report and P.W.7 is the
Photographer, who took Exs.P.5 to P.8 photographs of the dead body and handed over the same along with Ex.P.9 corresponding C.D. to the
Police.
13 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
19.P.W.8-Gokeda Arava Naidu is the then Village Revenue
Officer of S.Kota. He is panchayatdar of Ex.P.10 inquest report and preparing for scene observation report.
20.P.W.9 is one of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Lavanya, deposed about conducting postmortem examination, and the contents of Ex.P.13 report after receipt of Ex.P.12
Forensic Science Laboratory Report.
21.P.W.10 is the then Tahsildar of S.Kota, deposed about his conducting inquest in the presence of panchayatdars (P.W.8 and others) and also the blood relatives, examining witnesses during inquest under
Ex.P.10 inquest report.
22.P.W.11 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police
Station, deposed about receiving Ex.P.1 report of the deceased Lavanya on 04.01.2015 at 8-00 p.m., registering Ex.P.14 F.I.R., examining P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 and other witnesses and also receipt of Ex.P.2 report of P.W.1 on 09.01.2015 at 10-00 a.m., and filing Ex.P.15 alteration memo adding
Section 304-B of IPC to Ex.P.14 F.I.R., and handing over the investigation to P.W.13 the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer. He further deposed that as per the instructions of P.W.13 requested P.W.10 to conduct inquest.
23.P.W.12 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vizianagaram, who sent Viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad, arrested A-4 and A-5 on 16.2.2015 and filed charge sheet after receipt of Ex.P.12 Forensic Science Laboratory Report and Ex.P.13
Postmortem report.
24.P.W.13 is the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Vizianagaram, deposed that on receipt of information from P.W.11 about
Ex.P.15 alteration memo instructing him to give requisition to P.W.9
Tahsildar to conduct inquest; that after conducting inquest by P.W.9, he gave requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct autopsy; that later he 14 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and other witnesses, visited the house of P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.8 and another mediator, prepared Ex.P.11 scene observation report and Ex.P.16 rough sketch. On 11.01.2015 he arrested A-1 to A-3 and forwarded them to Judicial I Class Magistrate,
S.Kota for judicial custody.
25.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 the independent witnesses shows that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry, once tried to kill by pouring kerosene and subsequently by mixing poisonous substance they made her to consume cool drink, since then the health of the deceased was deteriorated and ultimately she died. Though, P.Ws.2 and 3 were declared hostile, their evidence need not be totally brushed aside, the same remains admissible and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon the said testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. In order to buttress his contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon’le
Apex Court in : Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar & another, Vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in 1997 (1) Crimes 264 (S.C.). The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show about giving of dowry and he categorically deposed that the deceased approached him for delivery of possession of the land given as Pasupu Kumkuma for cultivating personally and when P.W.1 wanted to give the same to the children to be born to P.W.1 and A-1, and his evidence also goes to show that mediations were raised with regard to the disputes.
26.Per contra, the learned defence counsel canvassed that the evidence of material witnesses for prosecution is full of discrepancies and omissions and cannot be relied upon. Further, the evidence of
P.W.9 Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, in support of
Exs.P.12 and P.13 shows no poisonous substance was found. Therefore, 15 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 the theory of administering poisonous substance is ruled out by the medical evidence. Further, the incident with regard to pouring kerosene is also not at all believable and not corroborated. The evidence of
P.Ws.4 and 5 with regard to the said incident is an omission, the same is proved by the evidence of P.W.13, who conducted investigation and also
P.W.10 the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest and recorded statements during inquest. Further, there is no corroboration in the evidence of
P.W.1 with regard to Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.1, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges. Therefore, he claims that the accused are entitled for acquittal.
27.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying on decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case in Pandappa
Hanumappa Hanamar’s Case supra, and also another decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in : Madhu @ Madhuranatha & another, Vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in 2013 Supreme (S.C.) 1080; and also in : Yogesh Singh, Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Others, reported in 2016 supreme (S.C.) 853 contends that the witnesses being village rustic, minor discrepancies or irrelevant details do not matter, Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter. He further contends that there is a long gap between administering poison, which resulted in deterioration of health and death. Therefore, Ex.P.12 report of Forensic Science Laboratory shows no poisonous substance is found in Viscera. Medical evidence is only an opinion, Court is not justified in passing its conclusion given by a Doctor, when the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 shows that poisonous substance was mixed in the cool drink. In this context, he relied on the decision of Pandappa
Hanumappa Hanamar’s Case supra.
16 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
28.On the other land, the learned defence counsel urged that the poisonous substance will remain in nails etc., even after several years, had really there was administering of poison to the deceased. He further urged that as per the prosecution, the deceased before her death on 08.01.2015, gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.1 and basing on which Ex.P.14 F.I.R., was registered and subsequently as per the evidence of P.W.11, he examined the deceased, as well as P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the other witnesses, has not seen the light of the day. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn since the accused has lost the opportunity of contradicting the statements though, they are not substantive piece of evidence, the accused had lost the opportunity of contradicting the said statements and the rights of the accused under
Sections 162 and 145 of Indian Evidence Act, were adversely effected.
Under these circumstances, the conviction cannot be sustained under
Law. In order to fortify his contention, he relied on the Judgment of our erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in : Nandikanuma
Lakshmamma and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 532 (A.P.); by relying on another decision of our erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in : Vadde Pallepu
Sekhar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 396 (A.P.), he urged that statement of the deceased under
Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., is admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence
Act, such statement is available to the prosecution or not, it must be marked, it is imperative duty of the Public Prosecutor to done the statement of the deceased under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., and mark the same, but non-filing or suppressing of the such statement and failure of the Police to give explanation therefor is nothing but with-holding the 17 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 important evidence and therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn under Section 114-b of Indian Evidence Act, against the prosecution.
29.He further canvassed that Ex.P.1 was not given by the deceased, but it was brought into existence subsequent to her death along with Ex.P.2, to suit the case of the prosecution. But I am unable to concede with the learned defence counsel in this regard that Ex.P.1 was brought into existence subsequent to the death of the deceased, because Ex.P.1 was received by the Court along with Ex.P.14 F.I.R., on 05.01.2015 at 11-30 a.m. Admittedly, the death of the deceased was occurred on the night of 08.01.2015. Therefore, irrespective of the contents of Ex.P.1, the fact remains that Ex.P.14 F.I.R., was registered prior to the death of the deceased. As per the recitals in Ex.P.1, the version of the deceased was after the incident of pouring kerosene on 03.01.2014, she escaped to her parents house from the matrimonial home, then a panchayat was raised before the elders, thereafter in
February, she along with A-1 started living in a separate house at the house of one Neelamsetty Apparao at Neelamsetti Street. While she was residing separately with her husband, during mid night, her husband used to come home and used to give cool drink, if she denies to take, he used to threaten that he will die and made her to take the cool drink and that she does not know what he mixed in the said cool drink. From May, 2014, she suffered from skin disease and health issues.
30.As per the averments in Ex.P.2 report of P.W.1, on one night in June, 2014, A-1 to A-3 forced her to take cool drink. After taking the said cool drink, she was feeling change in functioning of her lungs, kidneys and other organs and she was worried; that when her daughter informed the same, she took her daughter to the hospital. But while coming to the evidence, P.W.1 deposed in her chief-examination, in July, 18 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 2014 the accused gave cool drink by mixing poison; that on the next day morning her daughter informed her over phone about giving cool drink and she was not feeling well since then and that she was getting burning sensation all over the body; that immediately she went to her house and took her to the hospital. But P.W.4 says 15 days after A-1 started living separately along with the deceased, when she was at the house of P.W.1, Lavanya (deceased) came to the house of her mother (P.W.1) and informed that on the previous night, A-1 mixed something in the cool drink and gave it to her and since then she was getting stomach ache.
31.P.W.5 also deposed after A-1 and P.W.1 started living in
Polamarasetty Street, on one day the deceased Lavanya came to her mother stating that she took cool drink given by her husband and since then she is getting burning sensation and that when the deceased told the same to P.W.1, she was present. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that in their presence the deceased told P.W.1 about taking cool drink given by A-1 and since then her getting health problem is an omission, as could seen from the evidence of P.W.10, the Tahsildar, who recorded their statements during inquest and P.W.13, the Investigation Officer, who recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No-doubt, simply because of these omissions, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. But it may be noted that even if the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, after consuming cool drink, the deceased informed her mother over phone, but she did not come to her house. In fact, her mother (P.W.1) went to the house of her daughter (deceased) and took her to the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is contradicting the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Therefore, in their presence, the deceased told about the cool drink episode cannot be relied.
19 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
32.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is not corroborating with the averments made in Ex.P.1 and also Ex.P.2. No- doubt, in Ex.P.2, P.W1 got mentioned in June, 2014 A-1 to A-3 forced her to take cool drink by mixing some poisonous substance. While coming to her evidence, it is in July, 2014 oridinarily that discrepancy cannot be given much weight because of lapse of time., however, if Ex.P.2 and the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, only once, A-1 to A-3 gave cool drink, but Ex.P.1 is that since March, 2000 A-1 started making her to take cool drink under the threat that he will die otherwise; that means, it went on a process for several days and if Ex.P.1 is taken into consideration, it is only A-1, who forced her to take cool drink, but there was no involvement of A-2 and A-3, if Ex.A.1 is taken into consideration.
But P.W.1 says that it is A-1 to A-3 forced her to take a cool drink by mixing some poisonous substance. It may be noted that admittedly, by the date of the said alleged incident/incidents, A-1 and the deceased are living separately in a rented house from A-2 and A-3. As per Ex.P.1, she started getting skin disease from May,2014 itself, but the evidence of P.W.1 or Ex.P.2 are taken into consideration, it is only after June or July she fell sick.
33.As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, initially the investigation was started by P.W.11 basing on Ex.P.1 report after registering Ex.P.14 F.I.R., on 04.01.2015 basing on Ex.P.1 report of the deceased. If the evidence of P.W.11 is taken into consideration, on that day he examined the deceased, as well as P.Ws.1 to 3. If that is the case, the statement recorded by P.W.11 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., becomes admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel by relying on a decision in
Vadde Pallepu Sekhar’s Case of our Hon’ble High Court referred to supra, for suppressing the said statement, an adverse inference has to 20 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 be drawn under Section 114(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, against the prosecution. Moreover, according to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 the deceased had prolonged treatment at King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam, prior to that she was treated at S.Kota, Vizianagaram and a private hospital at Visakhapatnam. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said medical record has not seen the light of the day which is also material evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.
34.On the other hand, as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, it is elicited from P.W.12 the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who filed the charge sheet that P.W.13 while forwarding A-1 to A-3 to the Magistrate in the remand report mentioned that since the mother of the deceased stated that the prescriptions of the deceased as to treatment at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and other private hospital at Vizianagaram or the concerned Medical
Officer yet to establish the reasons how and why the health of the deceased got decreased and after examination of the Medical Officer under whom the deceased underwent treatment elicits the fact whether
A-1 got mixed the poisonous substance with cool drink or not as alleged by the deceased in her report. He further admitted that the same is also mentioned in the remand report, dt.16.02.2015 by him while forwarding A-1, A-4 and A-5 to the Magistrate. Therefore, by the time of arrest of A-1 to A-5, the Investigation Officer has not yet come to a conclusion whether there is any truth in the allegation of mixing poisonous substance or not. When the Court examined P.Ws.13 and 14, they categorically deposed that they have not examined the Doctors, who treated the deceased either at King George Hospital,
Visakhapatnam or other private hospital, have not verified the case sheet or seized the medical report.
21 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
35.Further, it cannot be ignored that the evidence of P.W.9 the
Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy in support of Exs.P.2 and P.3 does not disclose any poisonous substance in the body of the deceased and the cause of the death mentioned as ‘Septicemia’ and she categorically deposed that the cause of ‘Septicemia’ is spread of bacteria all over the body as the bacteria will release poisonous substance. Her evidence also shows that the small intestine gangrenous and there were ulcerations of right leg from below knee with dry gangrene of right foot and all toes. Deep ulceration over right foot Dorsum with exposing deeper bones and tendons. Left leg ulceration below knee up to foot with slough. Exs.P.12 and P.13 shows specimens of heart, lung, half of either of kidneys, liver, stomach were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory and when examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, no poisonous substance was found. In the cross-examination she admitted that renal failure is one of symptoms of chronic diabetics and in diabetic patients gangrene is common and likewise ulcerations. She further admitted that in diabetic patients, resistance power is low and when the resistance is low bacteria will evolve. Fungal, viral, bacterial agents when enter into the body, when the resistance is poor, septicemia will result.
36.No-doubt, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to convince the Court by saying that the defence has not filed any document to show that she was suffering from diabetic and the evidence of other witnesses shows she was hale and healthy by the time of marriage and she died within 18 months of the marriage. In the said span there cannot be that much of severe diabetics. But I am unable to concede with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, because it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Had really the Medical record 22 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 was produced by the prosecution, it discloses whether she was suffering from diabetes or not. The case sheet will disclose the same, but for the reasons best known to the Investigation Officer, they have not chosen to examine the Doctors, who treated her and did not choose to seize the medical report and produce before the Court.
37.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahabeer
Singh’s Case referred to supra that lapses of defective investigation does not invalidate the proceedings and the Medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive, in case of conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence, ocular evidence has to be preferred.
But the said citation is not applicable in the case on hand. In the case on hand, it is not only the defective investigation or conflict with ocular evidence and medical evidence. The evidence of prosecution witness with regard to the mixing of poisonous substance is very vague, they are not direct witnesses. Therefore, their evidence cannot be taken as an ocular evidence. Moreover, as already stated, there are major discrepancies and contradictions with regard to the said fact between the prosecution witnesses but non-production of material, medical evidence is fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, especially with regard to the offence under Section 302 of
I.P.C.
38.To prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under
Section 304-B of I.P.C., as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel by relying on a decision of our Hon’ble High Court in : Bejjanki
Kishan Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005 (2) ALD Cri 185, the prosecution has to establish :
(i)the death should be unnatural;
(ii)It should be within 7 years of the marriage, and 23 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
(iii)there should be harassment or cruelty by husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand of dowry.
If all these three ingredients are proved by the prosecution, then the onus would be on the accused to show that he is not guilty. But if any of the ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C., was not satisfied, then the conviction under Section 304-B of I.P.C., cannot be sustained. In the case on hand, no-doubt the death was occurred within seven years of the marriage. But my discussion supra shows the prosecution withheld material Medical evidence to show the death was unnatural and not due to any ill-health.
39.Coming to the harassment with regard to the dowry, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. There is no allegation against A-4 and A-5 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In
Ex.A.2 also there is no allegation against A-4 and A-5. In Ex.P.1 also except bald allegation that her in-laws house, the sisters of his father- in-law Kameswari and Dhanalakshmi (A-4 and A-5) frequently used to come and used to demand to bring additional dowry, otherwise, they will made A-1 to give divorce. If she did not bring money, they used to threaten to kill her. Basing on such allegation, they cannot be convicted either for the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C., or Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
40.Coming to giving dowry is concerned, in Ex.P.1 it is not categorically stated what was the dowry given, but in the last paragraph it was mentioned approximately an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given as dowry and 9 tulas of gold to her husband, her mother-in- law and her father-in-law. She further deposed that her husband pledged 9 tulas of gold as dowry. When the matter was placed before elders on 03.01.2015 at the house of Neelamsetty Ramakrishna, then her husband and her father-in-law and mother-in-law demanded to 24 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 register the house and Ac.1-00 cents of land in her name, in the name of A-1 to take her back to matrimonial home. But while coming to
Ex.P.2, in Ex.P.2 report of P.W.1 it is mentioned that she gave dowry of
Rs.2,50,000/-, 15 tulas of gold and Rs.35,000/- towards Adapaduchu
Lanchanams, but in Ex.P.1 there is no any whisper about giving of any
Adapaduchu lanchanams. Further, as per Ex.P.1, 9 tulas of gold was given, but while coming to Ex.P.2, it is mentioned as 15 tulas of gold.
P.W.1 deposed and in Ex.P.2, P.W.2 mentioned her son-in-law sold away the gold and spent the dowry amount for another woman with whom he has illegal relationship, but there is no whisper in Ex.P.1 as to A-1 having any illegal relationship with another lady. Further, it is mentioned that A-1 to A-3 insisted the deceased to sell away the house property and Ac.1-20 cents of land given to her. But as per Ex.P.1, Ac.1- 00 cents of land is mentioned. It may be noted that in Ex.P.2 she alleged as if A-1 was having illegal affair with another lady, but there is no whisper in her evidence or in Ex.P.1 or deposed by any of the witnesses as to any illegal relationship of A-1 with any other lady.
Though, P.Ws.2 and 3 are examined as elders to the marriage and eye witnesses for giving of dowry and other lanchanams as already stated supra, they have not supported the case of the prosecution that they are eye witnesses for giving of any dowry. Though, P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed about giving of dowry and other lanchanams as deposed by
P.W.1, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.1 that she gave the said dowry and other lanchanams in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. In fact, their evidence also does not disclose the said dowry was given in their presence. Their evidence does not disclose the source of information how they came to know about giving of dowry, lanchanams and other property.
25 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
41.According to P.W.1, after the marriage she lived happily for one month and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started demanding additional dowry. Except vaguely stating they started demanding additional dowry,did not depose what was amount they demanded. In Ex.P.2,
P.W.1 has not mentioned how long they lived happily, but while coming to her evidence, she deposed the deceased and A-1 lived happily for three months and thereafter started demanding additional dowry and to sell away the house and landed property given to her daughter. But if
Ex.P.1 is taken into consideration, initially there was no demand to sell away the property, but it is only after the deceased and A-1 living separately, he started demanding to sell away the property. Further,
P.W.3, who is examined as an elder testified the deceased after the marriage lived happily for three months, but thereafter disputes started, but he testified he does not know the reasons for disputes.
P.W.4 evidence is the deceased lived happily for two months and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started harassing for additional dowry. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the elders to the mediation, but the evidence of P.W.4 does not disclose the accused harassed the deceased complained of demanding to sell away the property. On the other hand, according to P.W.5 the deceased and A-1 lived happily for two months, but thereafter started demanding to transfer the property. But if Ex.P.1 is taken into consideration, originally they harassed her to sell the property, but ultimately before her death, when the mediation was held, they demanded to transfer the property in the name of A-1.
Though, P.Ws.2 and 3 are elders to the panchayat and P.W.2 categorically deposed once or twice talks were held before himself and other elders as to the disputes between A-1 and the deceased and they advised them to live together properly, but the prosecution did not choose to elicit from P.W.2 what are the nature of the disputes, why the 26 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 disputes arose between A-1 and the deceased. Either in the chief- examination or subsequently after declaring as hostile, when he was examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
42.According to the prosecution, the deceased was harassed for additional dowry, so that A-1 to A-3 doused her with kerosene for non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, but she escaped and came to the house of her mother. With regard to this episode, as per
Ex.P.1, on 03.01.2014 at about 7-00 am., while she was brushing at her in-laws house, A-1 to A-3 threatened her to kill, if she does not bring
additional dowry. When she expressed her inability, A-1 to A-3 poured
kerosene on her, then with fear she escaped to her parents house. Then the matter was placed before P.W.2, one Malla Ganesh, Dadi Sanyasirao and Chadaram Mahesh (who were cited as L.Ws.3,5 and 6). But as per
P.W.1, it is A-1 and A-2 poured kerosene, then but some-how the deceased escaped and came to her house then herself and her daughter went to the Police Station and also informed to the elders. But the elders convinced her to settle the matter saying that why to register a case. Two months thereafter, mediation was held before Adari
Krishna (P.W.2), Dadi Venkataramana (P.W.3), Dadi Sanyasirao (L.W.5) and Polamarasetti Ramakrishna (L.W.8). Therefore, as per Ex.P.1, it is A- 1 to A-3 poured kerosene, whereas according to P.W.1, it is A-1 and A-2 poured kerosene. But surprisingly in Ex.P.2 report given by P.W.1, there is no whisper about this kerosene episode.
43.In the last paragraph of Ex.P.1, the deceased insisted to take action against her husband Kumar, mother-in-law Atchayyamma, father-in-law Thatababu and maternal aunts Kameswari and
Dhanalakshmi. But as per the earlier paragraph of Ex.P.1, the said
Kameswari and Dhanalakshmi are the paternal aunts of A-1, but at the last para, they were described as if they are maternal aunts. It may be 27 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 noted that it is also mentioned that the Doctors at King George
Hospital, Visakhapatnam, informed that her two kidneys were failed, it requires operation; that she will survive for few months only. The word used as “Brathukuthundani”, that means in the third person. P.W.1 was recorded by P.W.6, as deposed by him, it would have been written as “Brathukuthanani” (1st person), but not “Brathukuthundani”. It may be noted that Ex.P.1 is not given in a hurried manner, it was given after long time after her discharge from hospital. If these discrepancies are taken into consideration, it gives raise to any amount of suspicion whether Ex.P.1 is report of P.W.1 and it was recorded to her dictation or not or just her signature was obtained. If Ex.P.1 is taken into consideration, the same was given in the presence of elders. Therefore, the discrepancies creates any amount of suspicion.
44.Further, though according to P.W.11, he recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the same was suppressed for the reasons best known to the prosecution and has not seen the light of the day. It may further noted that P.W.2 is none other than the paternal uncle of the deceased. But no motive is attributed by the prosecution either for his speaking falsehood in support of the accused or against the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 are examined as elders to the panchayat which is said to have been conducted subsequent to this kerosene episode. But as already stated, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In spite of the same, though the other elders i.e., Malla Ganesh, Dadi Sanyasirao, Polamarasetty
Ramakrishna, though were cited as witnesses, but they were given up by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no corroboration to prove the said episode and subsequent to the said incident, a panchayat was raised before the elders. Moreover, according to P.W.1 immediately after the incident, she along with her daughter went to the Police 28 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
Station to give report and also informed to elders. But had really the accused went to the extent of pouring kerosene with an intention to kill, the deceased simply kept quiet basing on the advice of the elders, is not believable and her evidence that the elders advised not to report complaint when the accused tried to kill her also appears to be doubtful. Especially when P.Ws.2 and 3 have not supported the same and the other elders were not examined.
45.No-doubt, P.W.4 deposed that in 2014 A-1 to A-3 doused the deceased Lavanya with kerosene, she saw when she was running towards her parents house; that when she enquired her, the deceased
Lavanya told that they demanded additional dowry and land to be transferred in the name of A-1. But P.W.1 refused saying that he will transfer the property in the name of children born to them, on that A-1 to A-3 poured kerosene. Likewise, P.W.5 testified on one day in the year 2014 she saw crowd on the road near their house, when she went there, found the deceased running from her in-laws house and told A-1 to A-3 poured kerosene for not transferring property. But the evidence of P.W.13, the Investigation Officer, as well as the evidence of P.W.10, the Tahsildar, shows P.Ws.4 and 5 have not stated either to the Tahsildar or to the Investigation Officer that they saw the deceased running from the house of her in-laws to her mother and that she told them about A-1 to A-3 pouring kerosene. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 is silent with regard to the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 when her daughter came running to her house after the kerosene episode. Therefore, their evidence with regard to this incident cannot be relied. Moreover, it may be noted that as per Ex.P.1, after the panchayat subsequent to the kerosene episode in January, 2014, as per the advice of the elders, in
February, 2014 A-1 and the deceased started living separately at
Neelamsetty Street. But as per the evidence of P.W.1, two months after 29 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 the incident panchayat was raised and then the separate resident was set up at Polamarasetty Street, that means if the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, A-1 and P.W.1 started living separately in around 1st week of March. In Ex.P.2 she has not mentioned when her daughter and A-1 started living separately since she vaguely mentioned that some time after the marriage, her daughter and son-in-law together set up a separate family from his parents.
46Admittedly the marriage of the deceased with A-1 was solemnized on 29.5.2013. When P.W.1 was cross-examined on the lines, after the marriage the deceased was brought to her house during
Ashadam as per custom, she testified as A-1 and P.W.1 were living separately, she was not brought to her house. She further testified during cross-examination that since one month after the marriage, A-1 and her daughter started separate family. If the evidence of P.W.1 during cross-examination is taken into consideration, it must be by the end of June or July, 1st week of 2013 A-1 and the deceased started living separately. If that is the case, either A-2 or A-3 pouring kerosene in
January, 2014 at the house of her in-laws cannot be believable. P.W.4 admitted during cross-examination that she has stated before the
Tahsildar during inquest that after completion of first Ashadam during
Sravanam, she was taken to her in-laws house, for 15 days they lived cordially and thereafter kerosene episode took place. Usually Ashadam will come in June or July and Sravanam will be in August, that means 15 days after August, the kerosene episode took place, that means it must be by the end of August or September, 2013 the kerosene episode taken place as stated to the Tahsildar during inquest. She further admitted that as per her statement to the Police, the kerosene episode took place in last January (her statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 09.01.2015). If that is the case, she stated to the Police that 30 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 kerosene episode took place in January, 2014. Thus, there is no consistency in her statement to the Tahsildar and to the Police.
47.Coming to the last panchayat said to have been held priorto giving Ex.P.1 report, as per Ex.P.1, the said panchayat was held on 03.01.2015 at the house of Neelamsetty Ramakrishna. In the said
Panchayat, A-1 to A-3 demanded to transfer property i.e., house and
Ac.1-00 cents land in the name of A-1. In Ex.P.2 there is no reference to this panchayat. But P.W.1 testified that the accused have not attended the said panchayat. Therefore, on the advice of the elders, she took her daughter to her in-laws house, but they did not allow saying that she is not well and they have not complained the demand of dowry and other lanchanams. Therefore, as per her chief-examination, the accused have not at all attended the said panchayat. Either in Ex.P.1 or in the evidence of P.W.1, there is no whisper about the names of the elders to the said panchayat. But P.W.3 testified that P.W.1 and the deceased complained that though she was sick, the accused are not providing treatment, on that he advised P.W.1 to provide treatment for herself. Subsequently P.W.1 informed him after providing treatment when she took her daughter to her in-laws, they did not allow her, on that he sent a message to A-1 to A-3 to held a meeting, but they did not respond. Therefore, he advised P.W.1 and her daughter to proceed as per their wish, then they gave report before the Police. But surprisingly
P.W.4 says that when the elders called A-1 to A-3, they informed that unless property is transferred in their name, they will not allow Lavanya to their house and left from there. Her evidence is contradicting to the evidence of P.W.1, since according to P.W.1 they have not attended the panchayat. On the other hand, as per the evidence of P.W.5, after discharge from the hospital, when the deceased and she along with
P.W.1 and others took the deceased to her in-laws house, they did not 31 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016 allow stating that they cannot look after her. But her evidence does not disclose A-1 to A-3 made any demand for dowry or any other property.
48.The foregoing discussion shows, there is no corroboration and consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus, the prosecution failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of A-1 for the charge under
Section 302 of I.P.C.; and A-1 to A-5 for the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, of I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., for the above said charges.
49.In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., and A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, of I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; and accordingly, A-1 to A-5 are acquitted
U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said charges. The accused 1 to 5 are directed to execute bonds for Rs.10,000/- Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear
before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22nd day of February, 2022.
Sd/- M. MADHURI,
Judge, Family Court cum
III Additional Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:-For Defence:-
P.W.1 : Adari Padma. - N O N E -
P.W.2 : Adari Krishna.
P.W.3 : Doddi Venkataramana.
P.W.4 : Bammidi Ramayyamma.
P.W.5 : J. Rama Devi.
32 III Addl. Sessions (Family) Court, VZM Sessions Case 136/2016
P.W.6 : Doni Janardhanarao.
P.W.7 : Doddi Kanaka Raju.
P.W.8 : Gokeda Adavi Naidu (V.R.O.).
P.W.9 : Dr. M. Aruna Kumari (Civil Asst. Surgeon).
P.W.10: A. Ramulamma (Tahsildar).
P.W.11: Sk. S. Ghani (Sub-Inspector of Police).
P.W.12: P. Venkata Ratnam (D.S.P.).
P.W.13: S. Srinivas (S.D.P.O.).
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Report, dt.04.01.2015 of deceased Lavanya given to the Police.
Ex.P.2 : Report, dt.09.01.2015 of P.W.1 given to the Police.
Ex.P.3 : Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., Statement, dt.09.01.2015 of P.W.2.
Ex.P.4 : Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement, dt.09.01.2015 of P.W.3.
Exs.P.5 to P.8 : Four Photos.
Ex.P.9 : Corresponding C.D.
Ex.P.10 : Inquest Report, dt.09.01.2015.
Ex.P.11 : Scene observation report, dt.09.01.2015.
Ex.P.12 : R.F.S.L. Report, dt.29.08.2015.
Ex.P.13 : Postmortem Certificate, dt.16.09.2016 of deceased Lavanya.
Ex.P.14 : Original F.I.R., dt.04.01.2015 in Cr.No.4/2015 of S.Kota P.S.
Ex.P.15 : Alteration Memo, dt.09.01.2015.
Ex.P.16: Rough Sketch, dt.09.01.2015 of scene of offence.
For Defence:- - N I L -
Material Objects Marked
- N I L -
Sd/- M. MADHURI,
Judge, Family Court cum
III Additional Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
Copies to
1. The Hon’ble Registrar, Judicial, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
2. The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
3. The District Magistrate -cum- District Collector, Vizianagaram.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.
5. The Addl. Public prosecutor, Vizianagaram.