1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SRI. V. BALA BHASKAR RAO,
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Dated on this the 30th Day of March, 2017.
SC No. 34 / 2015
Name of the complainant: The State through PS Chandanagar
Name of the accused: Gummadi Raja Shekar, S/o GTVS Kanna Rao,Age: 31years, Occ: Software Engineer Working in TCS, R/o : H.No.21-8-21, Korlampet, Devi Chowki,Rajhamundray,Andhra Pradesh.,
Crime Number: 19/2011
Offence Under Section: 498-A, 306 of IPC,
PRC No.: 111/2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally
Case committed by: II AJCJ cum XIX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally
Prosecution conducted by : Kovkuntla Shiva Kumar, II Addl. P.P.
Defence conducted by: M/s.P.Ram Reddy Advocate for Accused
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Sentence of order : In the result the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under sections 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
This case coming before me for hearing in the
presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and
of M/s.K.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the accused and
having stood over the matter for consideration till
this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
2
1) The State through the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Madhapur Division, Cyberabad filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of
IPC in Cr.No.19/2011 of Police station Chandanagar.
2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, the informant
Sri N. Dharma Rao performed the marriage of his daughter -Sridevi with the accused on 14-05-2006 at Narene Garden, Miyapur and arranged cash of Rs.12,00,000/- and 15 tolas of gold towards dowry.
Accused is the nearest relative of Smt. M. Nagamani, the wife of the informant-M. Dharma Rao. After the marriage, Sridevi and accused started their conjugal life at Gudimalkapur, Mehidipatnam and lived happily for some time. Subsequently differences arose between
Sridevi and accused and that the accused started her harassing physically and mentally. As such, the informant purchased the flat at
VSP Residency and got shifted them on 6-4-2010. She informed to her mother about ill treatment by her husband both mentally and physically and use of UN-parliamentarily words regarding her family, habits, cooking etc and denied to pursue further studies and insisted her to stay in the house. On the day of incident ie., 6-7-2010 Smt. M.
Nagamani spoke to Sridevi on telephone and on the same day at about 9-10 PM, they received information about the incident from the accused that Sridevi while preparing papadams accidentally caught fire as she tried to kill cockroach applied 'Hit', as such she received 'burn injuries'. Immediately the informant -M. Dharma Rao and his wife Nagamani rushed to the house of the accused by informing the same to 108 ambulance and found their daughter – Sridevi lying on 3 the floor with 'burn injuries' in the hall. Immediately Sridevi was shifted to Apollo hospital, Jubilee hills, and from there to
Kanchanbagh Apollo hospital for better treatment at 11-00 PM in 108 ambulance. While undergoing the treatment, Sridevi died due to her 'burn injuries' on 7-7-2010 at 10-00 PM in the hospital. That on 7-7- 2010 at 9-30 PM, on the report given by Smt. M. Nagamani, a case in
Cr.No.333/2010 was registered at Chandanagar under the Head 'women burns' and investigated into. After the death of the deceased, the Section of Law was altered from 'women burns' to the
Section 174 Cr.P.C., and the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station
Chandanagar – D. Kishan investigated into the case and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators -Smt. Morapala Morya Prabha and Sri Katla
Chandrashekar Reddy and subjected the dead body of Sridevi for postmortem examination to know the cause of the death. Dr. R.
Sudha, Assistant Professor, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem examination report and opined that the cause of the death is due to burns. After postmortem examination, the dead body of the deceased Sridevi was handed over to the blood relatives for funeral rites. After the death of the deceased -Sridevi, her parents -M. Dharma Rao and M. Nagamani went into depression and since the investigating Officer – D. Kishan Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar had not carried out proper investigation and dropped further action, not satisfied with that the informant -M.
Dharma Rao filed a private complaint in the Court of IX Metropolitan 4
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally against the accused and his
parents. The said private complaint was forwarded to the Station
House Officer, Police station Chandanagar for investigation and the
Inspector of Police, Chanadanagar on the basis of the above private complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.19/2011 under Sections 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and submitted the FIR into the Court and the investigation was taken over by K. Goverdhan Reddy, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division, during the course of investigation, the investigation officer visited the scene of offence at
V.S.P. Residency, Flat No.101, Chandanagar, Serlingampally and secured the presence of the witnesses M. Dharma rao, Smt. M.
Nagamani, Gummidi Buchi Raju, Gudipudi Srinivasulu, K. Sai
Chakradhar, Pandurasnga Nayakulu, Shekar, Golla Kanthaiah, Golla
Nagamani, Surapu Reddy Srinivas Rao, Smt. Basham Ramadevi,
Bandhe Prabhakar and Veera Babu and recorded their statements.
Further conducted the panchanama of scene of offence in the presence of the mediators (R.Subash and Veerababu) and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Further Sri M. Dharma
Rao and Smt. M. Nagamani deferred with the facts of the FIR and as such, the 164 Cr.p.C., statements of Sri M. Dharma Rao and Smt. M.
Nagamani were recorded by the Hon'ble VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad, Rajendranagar and both stated that due to harassment of the accused that Sridevi ended her life and requested for stern action. The other witnesses also stated before the investigation officer that, Sridevi committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused. The investigation discloses that, since the marriage, the 5 accused did not care about her though he was close relative prior to the marriage and that Sridevi had fed up with the attitude of the accused and waited for three years and there was no sign of change in the behavior of the accused, that Sridevi got disgusted with her life and ended her life by putting herself on fire by pouring kerosene at
Flat No.101, V.S.P. Residency at Chandanagar on 6-7-2010 at 9-00
PM and that accused is responsible for the death of Sridevi. The involvement of the parents of the accused is not proved. As such as per the evidence and the investigation the Section of law was altered from Section 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC to Section 498-A and 306 of
IPC. The accused is absconding. After completion of investigation, the the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division,
Cyberabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.
3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC against the accused in PRC
No. 101/2011 by the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Miyapur and issued NBW against the accused. The accused appeared before the committal Court and filed the copy of the Order in Crl.MP.No.2242/12 dt: 12-6-2014 wherein the Hon'ble
High Court dismissed the said petition. Later the case was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar as the learned Magistrate having perused the record, found the case as exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions after furnishing the case copies to the accused as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 6
Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No.34 / 2015 and made over the case to this Court for the further disposal of the case according to the law.
4) This Court having considered the record, framed the charges under Section 306 of IPC and under Section 498-A of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5)During the course of trial, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
6)After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against him for which he denied the said evidences and reported no defence evidence.
7)Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record
8)Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges
under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?
9) The burden of the proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard as stated above, to prove its case the prosecution relied on the evidence of
Pws 1 to 15 and the documents are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
PW12 -Dr. R. Sudha deposed she is working as Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and that 7 on 8-7-2010 on the requisition of the Station House Officer, Police station Chandanagar she conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Sridevi aged about 23 years at Osmania General
Hospital mortuary room from 1-30 PM and found the following antimortum injuries : - 1. Dermo epidermal (mixed fla me) burns involved face, neck anterior aspect of thorax and abdomen, anterior aspect of thighs up to middle third of both legs and total upper limbs.
PW12 stated burns involved total body surface area of about 75% and the probable time of death is 9-45 PM on 7-7-2010 while undergoing treatment at Apollo DRDO hospital and she is of the opinion that the cause of death of Smt. Sridevi is due to burns. PW12 stated Ex.P8 is the postmortem examination report dt: 8-7-2010 and she completed the postmortem examination at 3-30 PM on 8-7- 2010.
10)PW13 – D. Kishan, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
Police station Chandanagar deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead body of Smt. B. Sridevi at Osmania General Hospital mortuary room on the direction of the Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar B. Surender Rao on 8-7-2010 at 11-00 AM in the presence of mediators PW11 and M. Suryaprabha and prepared inquest panchanama Ex.P7 and that both mediators were of the opinion that the deceased Sridevi died due to 'burn injuries'.
11)PW11 -K. Chandrashekar Reddy deposed the deceased
Sridevi is the sister of his friend Pradeep and she died in the year 2010 and police conducted inquest over the dead body of Sridevi at
Apollo DRDO hospital, in his presence and in the presence of 8
Suryaprabha and he and other mediators were of the opinion that
Sridevi died due to 'burn injuries' sustained by her and he signed on the inquest panchanama dt: 8-7-2010 at 11-00 AM (Ex.P7).
12)PW14-K. Goverdhan Reddy the then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division deposed that he took up the investigation in Cr.No.19/2011 of Police Station Chandanagar and that on 10-01-2011 at 11-00 AM he secured the presence of the mediators R. Subhash-PW9 and Veerababu and in their presence, he observed the scene of offence situated at Flat No.101, V.S.P
Residency apartment, PJR Nagar, Gangaram under the limits of
Police station Chandanagar and prepared scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P5 and rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P6.
13) To corroborate the above evidence of PW14, the prosecution has examined PW9 – R. Subash. PW9 corroborated the evidence of PW14 that in his presence the police officials conducted scene of offence observation panchanama at Flat No.101,
V.S.P. Residency, PJR Nagar, Chandanagar and obtained his signatures on the scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P5 and rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P6.
14)In view of the above evidence of PW9, PW11,
PW12, PW13 and PW14, the prosecution has proved that Smt. B.
Sridevi sustained 'burn injuries' at Flat No.101, V.S.P. Residency, PJR
Nagar, Chandanagar on 6-7-2010 and that she died due to 'burn injuries' while undergoing treatment at Apollo hospital, DRDO on 7-7- 2010 at 9-45 PM.
9
15)To prove that Smt. Sridevi committed suicide by putting herself on fire unable to bear the harassment due to the mental and physical harassment of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW8 and PW10. PW1 and PW3 are the parents of Smt. B. Sridevi. PW2 is a circumstantial witness and cousin brother of Smt. Nagamani (PW3). PW4 – G. Srinivasulu is the husband of the sister of PW3. PW5, PW6 and PW8 are the circumstantial witnesses residing near the scene of offence. PW7 is the colleague of PW1 and examined as circumstantial witness.
PW10 is the watchman of the V.S.P. Residency where the offence took place.
16) PW1-M. Dharma Rao deposed that he performed the marriage of his daughter-Sridevi with the accused on 14-5-2006 at
Miyapur as per their caste customs and at the time of the marriage, he gave cash of Rs.12,00,000/- to the accused and presented 15 tolas of gold to his daughter-Sridevi and that the accused and his father and his relatives started quarreling with them on the date of marriage itself stating that, they did not honour them properly. PW1 stated that his daughter – Sridevi joined the conjugal society of the accused and both of them lived together at Rajahmundry with the parents of the accused. PW1 stated one month after the marriage, his daughter Sridevi came to their house during his absence informed to his wife that, she and her husband came from Rajahmundry and went to a flat at Attapur and she returned alone to their house and that his wife and his daughter went to purchase some house hold articles and gave some of the items of their house and dropped her 10 daughter at the flat at Attapur. PW1 stated accused was working in
TATA consultancy services, Hyderabad and that his daughter used to inform him on telephone daily that she is being harassed by t he accused demanding additional dowry and that they gave old articles and on one occasion the accused had thrown away the clothes of her daughter Sridevi outside the flat. PW1 stated on the next day morning he and his wife went to the flat at Attapur and brought his daughter Sridevi to their house and their daughter was at their house for one and half year. PW1 stated after one and half year he and his wife and G. Buchi Raju went to the native place of the accused at
Nallajarlla village, West Godavari District and conducted panchayat in the presence of the accused and his father and that the accused stated in the said panchayat to send their daughter to the marital house and that he will look after her properly. PW1 stated on return to the Hyderabad, he along with his wife and G. Buchi Raju dropped his daughter Sridevi at the flat of the accused at Attapur. PW1 stated the accused and his daughter lived happily for next one month and they went to the Shiridi Maharashtra and that accused used to harass his daughter stating that some one is looking after or some one is following her on the road. PW1 stated on 1-4-2010, he purchased a flat at P.J.R enclave, Madinaguda, Chandanatgar at a cost of
Rs.21,50,000/- and out of which the accused has given a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- which was given by him at the time of the marriage.
PW1 stated the accused still continued his harassment towards his daughter and his daughter used to inform the said harassment to his wife. PW1 stated on 4-7-2010 the accused and his daughter came 11 to their house being a Sunday and after taking lunch, he informed the accused that his daughter will pursue her further studies and will study MBA course for which the accused stated he will not agree for the same and that at 4-30 PM accused and his daughter left their house. PW1 stated on 6-7-2010 at 9-00 PM he received a telephone call from the accused that his daughter-Sridevi had burnt herself by pouring kerosene on herself in the flat upon which he enquired whether he has called the ambulance and accused stated he did not make any call for the ambulance. PW1 stated he immediately made a call to ambulance services and that he along with his wife rushed to the flat of the accused at Madinaguda. PW1 stated by the time they reached the flat of the accused, none of the neighbours were informed about the fact of his daughter sustaining 'burn injuries' and they found his daughter lying on the floor with 'burn injuries' and she was alive and in 108 ambulance services they shifted his daughter with burn injuries to Apollo hospital, Jubilee hills and later to Apollo hospital, Kanchanbagh and she was treated for two hours in the emergency ward and then shifted to a room.
PW1 stated by that time, his daughter was not in a condition to speak with them and he had no occasion to speak with his daughter regarding the above incident and his daughter died on 7-7-2010 in the night hours and that the police officials came to the hospital and that he and his wife were not allowed to enter into the said hospital room as his daughter was put under ventilation. PW1 stated on 16- 12-2010 he filed a private complaint -Ex.P1 at the Magistrate Court,
Kukatpally against the accused and his parents which was forwarded 12 to the Station House Officer, Chandanagar and basing on the same, police registered the case.
17)PW2-G. Buchi Raju deposed that, Smt. M. Nagamani, mother of the deceased Sridevi is his cousin sister and father of the accused is his cousin brother and that he acted as an elder for the marriage of accused and Sridevi and that dispute arose on the date of marriage that is 14-5-2006 itself with regard to the marriage arrangements between family of the accused and the parents of the
Sridevi and the said differences were sorted out and the Sridevi joined the conjugal life of the accused. But they were no talking terms between the Smt. M. Nagamani and father of the accused.
PW2 stated subsequently he was informed that Sridevi and accused started living in an apartment near Mehdipatnam and subsequently
Smt. Nagamani informed him that disputes arouse between the accused and Sridevi and that he advised the accused and his father to look after Sridevi properly and a panchayat was held in the year 2009 at Nallajarla, West Godavari District before the elders along with parents of Sridevi and that the accused stated before the elders that he is ready to lead conjugal life with Sridevi if she is ready to live with him separately and that the elders have also advised accused and the Sridevi to live separately. PW2 stated accordingly the accused and Sridevi set up a separate marital house at
Mehidipatnam and they lived together happily for one month and that he was informed again disputes arose between accused and
Sridevi. PW2 stated the parents of Sridevi purchased a flat at P.J.R.
Enclave at Madinaguda which is nearer to their house at 13
Chandanagar. PW2 stated on 6-7-2010 he received telephone message from PW1 at 10-00 PM and that his daughter -Sridevi suffered with 'burn injuries' and that he is shifting her in an amublance to the hospital and Sridevi was admitted at Apollo hospital, Kanchanbagh and she died on the next day due to 'burn injuries'. PW2 stated he was informed by PW1 and Smt. Nagamani that their daughter Sridevi due to her disputes with accused poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. PW2 further stated that
PW1 and Smt. Nagamani also informed him that to make Sridevi admit into hospital and for treatment purpose they have stated before police that Sridevi sustained 'burn injuries' accidentally.
18)PW3 -Smt. M. Nagamani wife of PW1 and mother of deceased Sridev corroborated the evidence of PW1, PW1 stated after the marriage the accused and his family members tortured her daughter – Sridevi stating that they have not provided enough house hold articles at the time of the marriage and six months after her marriage, her daughter returned to their house and informed that the accused abused her and she was not allowed to go out of the house.
PW3 stated from that day onwards, her daughter was in their house for about one and half year. PW3 stated subsequently a panchayat took place before elders at Nallajarla village of West Godavari District and elders advised the accused and sent their daughter again to their marital house, but again disputes took place between the accused and her daughter. PW3 stated her husband purchased a flat at
P.J.R. Enclave by taking a loan, in her name and gave the said flat, her daughter used to inform her that she is still being harassed by the 14 accused, but PW3 stated after purchase of the said flat on 30-6-2010 they went to the flat at P.J.R. Enclave to celebrate the birthday of her daughter. PW3 stated on 6-7-2010 at about 8-30 to 9-00 PM, her husband received a telephone call from the accused stating that her daughter had put herself on fire by pouring kerosene on herself and they reached the flat of her daughter and the watchman informed he is not aware about the said fire incident and by the time they entered into flat, her daughter was lying on the floor in the main hall and water was poured on her and her daughter received burn injuries on her chest part and on her hands and her daughter was not in a condition to talk with her and on two occasions, her daughter stated "Annayya
Annayya" and on hearing the same she asked her daughter whether she shall call her elder son Pradeep Kumar for which she nodded her head. PW3 stated her daughter was admitted in Apollo hospital at
DRDO, Kanchanbagh on 7-7-2010, she died and till her death she was not in a position to speak with her. PW3 stated that while her daughter was undergoing the treatment at the hospital a police constable came there and recorded her statement and that she was alone in the hospital and informed the said constable that she will sign on the said statement after return of her husband, but the said constable insisted that he has to reach the Police station and forcibly obtained her signature on the said statement. PW3 stated the dead body of her daughter was handed over to them by police and the final rites were performed at their house by the accused and two months later, the accused vacated the flat at P.J.R. Enclave and the accused has shown a small bottle which contained kerosene and informed 15 that her daughter has set herself on fire and that he could not put off the said fire. PW3 stated three months later, her husband filed a private complaint before the Court. PW3 stated that the accused is responsible for the death of her daughter and her daughter did not pour kerosene on herself in view of the 'burn injuries' sustained by her, there is no possibility for pouring the said kerosene on herself.
19)PW4-G. Srinivasulu, the younger brother of PW3 deposed that he is a resident of Kurnool. After the marriage between accused and Sridevi a panchayat was held at Chebrolu, West Godavari
District before the elders and that the elders advised the accused and
Sridevi to live together and advised parents of Sridevi to send her to the house of the accused and on the advised the parents of the accused to look after her properly.
20)PW4 stated in February, 2009 accused and Sridevi started living together at Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad and later the parents of Sridevi purchased the flat in the year 2010 and then the accused and Sridevi started living in that flat and dispute took place since the said flat was not in the name of the accused. PW4 stated on 7-7-2010 PW1 informed him on telephone while he was at Kurnool that Sridevi sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital and he reached Hyderabad in the evening hours of 7-7-2010 and Sridevi sustained 'burn injuries' all over her body to an extent of 75% of her body. PW4 stated on the same night, Sridevi was declared dead by the hospital authorities at 9-40 PM. PW4 stated as seen from the injuries sustained by Sridevi, the said injuries are only due to the act of the accused and the accused did not take any steps 16 to douse the fire even though he was present there. PW4 stated on 8-7-2010 he went to the P.J.R. Enclave and on his enquiry, the neighbours informed him that they did not hear any shrieks or cries of
Sridevi and the watchman stated that he does not know how Sridevi died. PW4 stated after PW1 lodged the private complaint before the
Court at Miaypur in the year 2011, police registered a case, later he was examined by the police.
21)PW7-K. Sai Chakradhar deposed PW1 is working along with him at ordinance factory Medak and that he attended the marriage of daughter of PW1 and PW3 with the accused in the year 2006 at Narene Gardens, Miyapur. PW7 stated four months later,
PW1 informed him that the marital life of his daughter is not happy as accused is harassing her by demanding additional dowry and articles.
PW7 further stated accused and his wife used to reside as tenants in a flat at Gudimalkapur and at that time, he accompanied PW1 and others and advised the accused and his wife to live together happily.
PW7 stated in the year 2007, PW1 purchased a flat for the accused and his daughter at Deepthisree Nagar, Miyapur and he attended the house warming ceremony along with others. PW7 further stated three months later one day during night hours, PW1 informed him that his daughter died due to burn injuries. PW7 stated subsequently after three or four days on the death of his daughter, PW1 informed him that the accused killed his daughter by putting her on fire.
22)PW10- Veerababu deposed he is working as watchman at
V.S.P. Residency and the accused lived in the Flat No.101 along with his wife Sridevi at P.J.R. Nagar. PW10 stated about five years back, 17 accused and his wife used to quarrel constantly and that on one night at 9-30 PM on hearing galata from the house of the accused, he went there and observed that Sridevi had put fire on herself and she was lying on the floor in the hall of the flat and later the parents of the
Sridevi came there and shifted her to the hospital.
23)PW5 – Pandu Ranga Nayakulu deposed in the year 2010 he sold Flat No.101, at V.S.P. Residency, P.J.R.Nagar, to PW1 in the year 2010 and after five months of the sale of the flat to PW1, the watchman of the said flat informed him that the daughter of PW1 commited suicide in the said flat by putting herself on fire. PW5 stated he does not know the reason why the daughter of PW1 committed suicide.
24)PW6 – S. Shekhar deposed he is running beauty saloon shop at V.S.P. Residency , Gangaram, Chandanagar and that on 6-7- 2010 in the morning hours he came to know that a resident of the flat committed suicide by burning herself and he visited the above flat.
He does not know any of the facts considering to this case.
25)As PW5 and PW6 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross examined PW5 and PW6 with the prior permission of this Court but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case. The statements of PW5 and PW6 before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are marked as
ExP2 and Ex.P3 respectively.
26)PW8 – B. Prbhakar a resident of Gudimalkapur was examined as circumstantial witness by the prosecution. PW8 deposed about four years back, Sridevi and husband ie., accused 18 lived in the apartment opposite to his house at Gudimalkapur,
Mehdipatnam and he does not know about the marital affairs between the accused and Sridevi. As PW8 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross examined PW8 with the prior permission of this Court, but failed to elicit anything in support of the prosecution case. The statement of
PW8 before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is marked as
Ex.P4 respectively.
27)PW15-B. Surender Rao deposed that earlier he worked as Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar and that on 9-1- 2011 at 4-00 PM he received a complaint referred by IX Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur which was filed by PW1 -M.
Dharma Rao on the basis of which he registered a case in Cr.No.19/ 2011 under Section 304-B, 498-0A r/w Section 34 of IPC and took up the investigation in this case and issued FIR Ex.P10 and informed the concerned officer. PW15 stated on the same day, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police – K. Goverdhan Reddy took up the further investigation in this case.
28)PW14 – K. Goverdhan Reddy the Investigating Officer in this case stated that he took up the investigation in this case on 9-1- 2011 and secured the presence of PW1 and PW3, examined them and recorded their statements and on 10-01-2011 he secured the presence of the witnesses PW2, PW1, PW7 at the scene of offence examined them and recorded their statements and also observed the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators. PW12 stated on 12-2-2011 he secured the presence of PW5 and PW6 and recorded 19 their statements and that on 20-02-2011 he examined and recorded the statements of Golla Kantaiah, Golla Nagamani and on 13-03- 2011 he recorded the statements of Surapreddy Srinivas Rao,
Bhashyam Ramadevi and he recorded the statements of PW8 on 4- 4-2011. PW14 stated on 5-5-2011 he filed a petition before the VIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cybderabad, Rajendranagar and the statements of PW1 and PW3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements were recorded by the Court on 7-5-2011. PW14 stated as per his investigation, he filed a Memo before this Court altering the Section of Law from Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC to Section 498-A and 306 of IPC and addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Serilingampally to transfer original FIR in Cr.No.333/2010 of Police station Chandanagar under the Head 'women burns' to the IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally. PW14 stated on receipt of postmortem examination report and on completion of his investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC by showing the accused as absconding.
29)The charge against the accused is that, he physically and mentally harassed his wife Smt. Sridevi demanding for additional dowry and that on 6-7-2010 at 9-00 AM that Smt. Sridevi unable to bear the torture at the hands of the accused put herself on fire and that subsequently Smt. Sridevi died at Appollo hospital, DRDO
Kanchanbagh on 7-7-2010 at about 9-45 PM and thereby accused is liable to be punishable for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
20
30) As per the evidence of PW1 and PW3 who are the parents of
Smt. Sridevi disputes took place between the accused and their daughter after they started living together in a apartment near by
Mehidipatnam and that, the accused used to harass Smt. Sridevi stating that some one is looking after or some is following her on the road. PW1 stated that accused harassed her demanding additional dowry and that they gave old articles and that the accused had thrown away the clothes of his daughter Sridevi outside the flat and on the next day his wife (PW3) went to the flat at Attapur and brought
Sridevi to their house and Sridevi was at their house for a period of one and half year. PW3 did not state before this court that the accused has thrown away the clothes of her daughter -Sridevi out side the flat and that she went and brought Sridevi to the house and the Sridevi was at their house for a period of one and half year.
31)PW1 to PW4 have deposed before the Court with regard to the panchayat held at Nallajarlla, West Godavari District, but the said fact was not found in the Ex.P1 private complaint filed by PW1 on the basis to which this case was registered by the police. Further as per the prosecution case, on the basis of the private complaint
Ex.P1 before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur on 16-12-2010 which was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police station Chandanagar. PW15 the then Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar registered a case in Cr.No.19/12 on 9-1-2011 and the said case was investigated by PW14 the then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Division, Cyberabad. It is an admitted fact that basing on the report given by PW1 on 6-7-2010 a 21 case in Cr.No.333/10 of Police station Chandanagar under Ex.P9 FIR was registered under the Head 'woman burns' on 7-7-2010 and after investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar filed a final report on 28-7-2010 marked as Ex.D1 before the
Executive Magistrate, Serlingampally to refer the case as accidental death 'due to burns'.
32)The learned counsel for the accused contended that registration of a second FIR under Ex.P10 for the same offence is illegal. In view of the fact that, on the basis of the report lodged by
PW3, Station House Officer, Police station Chandanagar registered a case in Cr.No.333/2010 under the Head 'women burns' and after due investigation the case was closed by filing a final report by Sub
Inspector of Police, Chandanagar before Executive Magistrate to refer the case as 'accidental death'. The filing of the private complaint under Ex.P1 by PW1 and registration of the case for the same incident is impermissible and if PW1 and PW3 are aggrieved by the final report filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Police station
Chandanagar should have filed protest petition before the concerned Court and to have lead evidence for taking cognizance of the case for the above said offences against the accused.
33)The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and PW7 to prove that Smt. Sridevi the deceased in this case committed suicide unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused. Admittedly PW1 and PW3 are the parents of the Smt.
Sridevi. PW2 is the cousin brother of PW3, PW4 is the younger brother of PW3. PW7 is a colleague of PW1. The independent 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution ie., PW5, PW6 and PW8 did not support the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW10
Veerababu, the watchman of the PJR apartment where the accused and Smt. B. Sridevi have lived at Flat No.101 goes to show that on the date of incident, he heard galata from the flat of thje accused at about 9-00 PM and that he went there and observed that, Sridevi has put herself on fire by pouring kerosene on herself and lying on the floor in the flat and later the parents of the Sridevi came there and shifted her to the hospital in an ambulance. The said evidence of
PW10 is not in corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and PW4.
PW1 stated upon receiving the information from the accused on 6-7- 2010 at 9-00 PM that he and his wife rushed to the flat of Sridevi and accused which is situated at Madinaguda which is at a distance of 3 km from their house and by the time they reached the flat of the accused, none of the neighbours were informed about the facts of his daughter sustaining 'burn injuries'. In the cross examination, PW4 stated none of the neighbours and the watchman of PJR Enclave informed anything against the accused and they disclosed they do not know anything about the accused and Sridevi. In view of the evidence of PW1 and PW4 the above evidence of PW10 is found unreliable since PW10 as watchman of the apartment having observed Smt. Sridevi putting herself on fire or having observed Smt.
Sridevi lying on the floor in the house of the Flat No.101, PJR
Enclave that he would have informed the other flat owners but there is no evidence that PW10 has informed other neighbours or flat owners regarding the same and in such circumstances, I am of the 23 considered opinion that no reliance can be placed on the above said evidence of PW10.
34)PW1 and PW3 have deposed that on 6-7-2010 at about 9-00 PM they received a telephone call from the accused that Sridevi sustained 'burn injuries as she put herself on fire by pouring kerosene on herself and as such, they reached the flat of accused and Sridevi and shifted her to the hospital. In the cross examination of PW1 admitted he has informed the hospital authorities at Apollo hospital,
Kanchanbagh that his daughter sustained the 'burn injuries' while she was cooking and frying papdas for the dinner on that night. PW1 voluntarily added that he informed the said fact only on being informed regarding the same by the accused. In the cross examination PW3 stated at present, she does not remember what she stated before the police at the Kanchanbagh hospital. PW3 stated that she has given a report to the police when she was at the hospital at Kanchanbagh in her handwriting and the said contents are written by her to the dictation of the police constable wherein she has mentioned that her daughter sustained 'burn injuries' while she was frying the papads.
35)PW1 in the cross examination admitted by the time they reached the Flat No.101, PJR Enclave, his daughter was conscious and she was in a speaking condition. PW3 in the cross examination stated by the time they reached the flat of the accused and her daughter that she observed her daughter received the 'burn injuries' on her chest and on her hands and she was lying on the floor in the main hall and water was poured on her and that her daughter was not 24 in a condition to speak with her and on two occasions her daughter stated 'Annayya Annayya' and on hearing the same, she asked her daughter whether she shall call her elder son Pradeep Kumar for which she nodded her head. In the cross examination of PW2 who is cousin brother of PW3 stated he has spoken with Smt Sridevi at
Apollo hosptial , Kanchanbagh as to how she sustained 'burn injuries' and she started crying and as she was not fully conscious she could not answer him properly. PW2 admitted Sridevi informed him that she sustained 'burn injuries' accidentally while she was preparing dinner while frying the papads. The evidence of PW4 and PW7 does not disclose that when they spoke with Smt. Sridevi while she was in the hospital. The evidence of PW4 and PW7 with regard to the above incident on 6-7-2010 is only hearsay evidence. The incident took place on 6-7-2010 at 9-00 PM and Smt. B. Sridevi died on 7-7-2010 at 9-45 PM and the case in Cr.No.333/2010 was registered under the Head 'woman burns' on 6-7-2010 at 9-00 Pm at Police station Chandanagar on the basis of the report given by smt.
Nagamani (PW3) and subsequently under Ex.D1 a final report was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Chandanagar on 28-7-2010 to refer the case as 'accidental death due to burns'.
Further admittedly PW1 has filed this private complaint Ex.P1 on 16-12-2010. The contention of the prosecution is that, due to depression PW1 could not file the private complaint at the earliest.
In the cross examination PW1 stated twenty days after death of his daughter, he rejoined his service and performed his duties regularly.
PW3 stated twenty days after the death of her daughter, she started 25 going to the optical shop being run by her and in such circumstances, when PW1 and PW3 were attending to their regular works within a period of one month from the death of Smt. Sridevi, the contention of the prosecution that, PW1 filed a private complaint Ex.P1 after a period of three month from the date of death of Smt. B. Sridevi as
PW1 was under depression is found to be an untenable contention.
36) In the instant case as stated above basing on the report given by PW3 the SHO, PS Chandanagar registered a case in Cr.no.
333/2011 marked as Ex.P9 on 07.07.2010 and that a final report was filed under Ex.D1 stating that the death of Smt. Sridevi was due to accidental burns. The lodging of Ex.P1 private complaint by PW1 at the concerned magistrate court on 16.12.2010 is quite contrary to the contents of the report lodged in Cr.no. 333/2010 Ex.P9, hence it is to be concluded as a created and after thought and introduction of version as a result of deliberation and consultation and the reason offered by PW1 for the delay in lodging of Ex.P1 private complaint is not properly explained. In view of the fact that PW1 and PW3 have attended their regular works within a period of one month from the date of death of Sridevi and as such, the above private complaint
Ex.P1 lodged after a period of five months fromt he date of death of
Sridevi is found to be totally untenable and no reliance can be placed at the contents of Ex.P1 private complaint. The evidence on record shows that after Smt. Sridevi sustained burn injuries, she did not speak to her parents PW1 and PW3 informing them as to how she sustained burn injuries. In the cross examination PW2 as stated above has stated that Smt. Sridevi informed her that she sustained 26 burn injuries accidentally while she was preparing dinner while frying papads. The hospital authorities or investigation officer did not take any steps for recording the Dying Declaration of Sridevi while she was at Apollo HOspital, DRDO, Kanchanbagh from 10PM dt.
06.07.2010 till 9:45PM on 07.07.2010 while she was undergoing treatment at the above hospital.
37)The investigation officer PW13 has stated that he has filed an application before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar who recorded Sec. 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW1 and PW3 recorded by learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar and the said statement are on record. But a perusal of the said sec.164
Cr.P.C statement of PW1 and PW3 does not disclose that they had stated that their daughter Sridevi had committed suicide by putting herself on fire unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused. In the cross examination PW1 admitted that after registration of this case, on the application filed by the police his statement was recorded by the magistrate at Rajendranagar u/sec.
164 Cr.P.C statement and the facts stated by him before this court today are not stated by him in the statement before the Magistrate at
Rajendranagar. In the cross examination, PW3 stated she has stated all the facts stated before the court in the chief examination and the facts stated in the private complaint and in her statement before the police before the Magistrate, Rajendranagar, As stated above the said statement u/sec. 164 Cr.P.C of PW3 recorded by the learned VII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar consists of only five or six sentences and it does not disclose that PW3 has stated anything 27 against the accused or that her daughter committed suicide unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused.
38) Further, the evidence on record shows that the death ceremonies of Smt. Sridevi were performed by the accused at the residence of PW1 and PW3 and that the accused along with his father and his elder brother and other relatives of the accused participated in the said final ritesof his daughter and that during the said final rites, the accused and his relatives lived in the flat at P.J.R.
Enclave, Madinaguda. PW1 voluntarily added that he demanded the accused to immediately vacate the said flat and the accused stated he is unable to find a room for himself. PW1 stated after the death of his daughter after filing a private complaint, after holding talks, accused paid him a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cheque and he said cheque was honoured and he received amount. In the cross examination PW3 denied the suggestion that after the death of her daughter that she and her husband extracted a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the accused and that they have demanded a further sum of Rs.
6,50,000/- from the accused. In the cross examination PW2 stated he does not know whether after filing of the above said private complaint, talks took place between the accused and PW1 and that on the demand of PW1 that the accused paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to PW1. PW2 stated he does not know whether PW1 and PW3 gave a statement before the Magistrate on receipt of the above said amount that they have filed a false complaint against the accused. In the cross examination PW4 own brother of PW3 stated he was not present at the time of exchange of money between accused and 28 parents of Sridevi after death of Sridevi but he was informed that the accused paid amounts to the parents of Sridevi after her death.
39) Hence in view of the above evidence of PW1 to PW4 when the grievance of PW1 and PW3 is that their daughter Sridevi committed suicide unable to bear the harassment at the hands of the accused, the admission of PW1 and PW4 that PW1 received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the accused after filing of the private complaint by PW1 supports the contention of the accused that PW1 has filed the above private complaint to extract money from him. If really the parents of the daughter who committed suicide were aggrieved against their son-in-law the question of receiving any amounts from their son-in-law by the said parents of the deceased does not arise.
40) Further in the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, at the earliest point of time, PW1 and PW3 have stated
before the police (I.e) PW13 the then SI of Police, D.Kishan who
investigated the case in Cr.no.333/2010 that the death of their daughter is due to accidental burns and as such, Ex.D1 final report was filed in Cr.no.333/2010 and subsequently without showing any proper reason. PW1 has filed private complaint Ex.P1 with much delay which is only due to deliberation and consultation. Further the evidence of PW1 to Pw4 and PW7 does not inspire confidence of this court and the evidence of PW1 and PW3 is materially improved from their earlier version statements before the police and explanation offered by Pw1 and PW3 for filing the private complaint Ex.P1 after closure of the earlier case in FIR 333/2010 of PS Chandanagar is found unacceptable. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to 29 prove the guilt of accused for the charges u/sec. 498-A and 306 of
IPC is found not sufficient and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charges u/sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and is to be acquitted for the said charges. The point is answered accordingly.
41) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against the accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.
The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2017.
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: N.Dharma Rao - Nil - PW.2: G.Buchi Raju PW.3: M.Nagamani PW.4: G.Srinivasulu PW.5: Pandu Ranga Nayakulu PW.6: S.Shekar PW.7: K.Sai Chakradhar PW.8: Bande Prabhakar PW.9: R.Subhash PW.10: Veera Babu PW.11: Katla Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW.12: Dr.R.Sudha PW.13: D.Kishan PW.14: K.Govardhan Reddy PW.15: B.Surender Rao 30
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Private complaint dt. 16.12.2010 Ex.P2: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P3: Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P5: Scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: Inquest panchanama dt. 08.07.2010 Ex.P8: Postmortem examination report dt. 07.07.2010 Ex.P9: First Information Report in Cr.no.333/2010 of PS Chandanagar Ex.P10: First Information Report cr. no. 19/2011 of PS Chandanagar
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1: CC of final report dt. 28.07.2010 in Cr.no. 333/2010 PS Chandanagar
MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
31 30.03.3017
Police present, Accused is present.
Judgment pronounced (VSJ) in the open court.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges punishable under section 498-A, 306 of I.P.C framed against accused and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months from the date of this judgment.
II ASJ