1
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
(F.T.C.), R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.
Present:Smt.D.Sarala Kumari, M.A., LL.M., VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, FAC III Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge(F.T.C.)
On this the 10th day of January, 2012
S.C.No. 78 Of 2008 Between:
Name of the Complainant: P.S. Neredmet
Name of the Accuse: A1 Ravish Gupta, S/o.Avatar Krishna Gupta, 28 years, Occ:Territory Manager in India Infoline Ltd., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, R/o.Plot No.223, Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Sree Towers, Chandragiri Colony, Neredmet.
A2: Smt.Mitilesh Gupta, W/o.Avatar Krishna, 50 years, Occ:Housewife, Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, Sree Towers, Chandragiri Colony, Neredmet.
Charge U/s: 306 and 498A IPC
Cr.No.: 341/2007
PRC No.: 96/2007
Case Committed by : Smt.U.Indira Priyadarshini,B.L., X Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.
Prosecution conducted by: Sri M.Ganga Reddy, APP
Defence conducted by : E.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the accused 1 and 2.
Plea of the accused: Not guilty
Finding of the court: Found not guilty
Sentence for order : In the result, accused A1 and A2are found not guilty of the 2 chargesandaccordingly acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 (Two pieces Chunni) M.O.2(Scissor)shallbe destroyed after appeal time is over. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.
This case is coming before me for final disposal in the presence Sri M.Ganga Reddy, Advocate for the state and E.Srinivas Reddy Legal Aid Counsel and upon perusal of the material on records and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This case is filed against the accused A1 and A2 namely Ravish
Gupta and Mitilesh Gupta. A1 and A2 harassed by reiterating the
additional dowry with common intention. Unable to bear the torture and
harassment of A1 and A2, the deceased vexed on her life and decided to put an end. Accordingly, deceased went into her bed room and due to which she died on the spot and thereby committed an offences punishable U/s.498A and 306 IPC.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, P.S Malkajgiri filed a charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 alleging that the marriage of the deceased with A1 in the month of May,2006 with sufficient dowry of cash and other articles according to their customs. After their marriage
A1 and deceased started living in Sree Towers. They blessed with a daughter aged about seven months. In the month of April,2007 A1's youngest brother name Deepak Gupta marriage has been performed with huge dowry of Rs.25 lakhs. Since then A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased mentally and physically with a demand to get additional dowry 3 from her parents. The deceased informed the same to her parents who expressed their inability to fulfill the demand of accused. On that both the accused intensified the harassment against the deceased mentally and physically and the accused also informed the deceased that they well sell the gold ornaments given to her at the time of her marriage. Accordingly the deceased informed the same to LW6 (Purushotam Das) on 1282007 over phone. On the night of 1382007 and in the morning of 1482007 both the accused harassed the deceased by reiterating the above demand with common intention. Unable to bear the torture and harassment of A1 and A2 the deceased vexed on her life and decided to put an end.
Accordingly she went into her bed room and committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan with the help of placket, due to which she died on the spot.
On 1482007 at 11.30 hours the complainant LW1 (Sri Ram Rai Agarwal) gave a report to the police. LW16 (Sri A.Balakoti), Inspector of Police, PS
Neredmet registered a case in Cr.No.341/2007 U/s.306 IPC and the investigation entrusted to LW17 (Sri P.Prabhakar Rao), A.S.I.of Police, PS
Neredmet. During the course of investigation he examined Lws 1 and 5 (Sri Ram Rai Agarwal and Sri Sumith Gupta) and on the requisition LW14 (Smt.Ratna Kalyani) Mandal Revenue Officer visited the scene of offence, situated at Sree Towers, Chandragiri Colony, Neredmet, got photographed the scene and dead body through a private photographer by name Sri
Chemudala Ashok Kumar(LW9). The MRO conducted observation panchanama in the presence of mediators Lws 10 and 11 ( Syed
Qutubuddin and M.Manemma) and seized two placket pieces and scissor from the scene under cover of same panchanama. Later he also held 4 inquest over the body of the deceased Smt.Preethi Gupta in the presence of same mediators. Thereafter inquest the corpse referred to the mortuary of
Gandhi Hospital for conducted autopsy by LW15 (Dr.B.Sriramulu)
Assistant Professor. Thereafter dead body handed over to blood relatives for observing last rites. On 1582007 LW6 (Purushotham Das) father of the deceased presented a petition stating that on 1482007 he received death information and rushed to scene offence and A1 and A2 reason for death of deceased. Accordingly section of law altered to 304 (B) IPC from 306 IPC. Thereafter ACP LW18 (P.Ranga Rao) Assistant
Commissioner of Police who verified the investigation of LW17 (P.Prabhakar Rao), examined LW7 (Kum.Pooja Sharma) in details re examining Lws 2 and 3 (Smt.Jyothilatha and Neeraj Agarwal). On 228 2007 A1 and A2 were arrested, on interrogation both the accused 1 and 2 voluntarily admitted their guilt in this case. LW18 (P.Ranga Rao) recorded the confessional statement of A1 in the presence of mediators
Lws 12 and 13 (Sri Palnati Narsimha and Bandari Ramulu). On 2308 2007 A1 and A2 were arrested and remanded in judicial custody. As per the evidence collected in the investigation, it is established that the accused A1 and A2 have committed an offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B of IPC.
3.The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri before whom the charge sheet was filed, found that there is a prima facie material in the allegations of the charge sheet and as such took cognizance of the offences of the case for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 306 of IPC against the accused in PRC.No.96/2007. After complying the provisions of 5
Sec.208 Cr.P.C the said offences are exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, they committed the case to this Court against the accused. Here it
was registered as S.C.No.78/2008 for disposal in accordance with the relevant provision of law.
5. Heard the Addl.P.P for the State and the learned counsel for accused and framed charges and finding that there are no grounds to discharge either the accused from the case, for the offences punishable U/s.306 and 498A of IPC against the accused, read over and explained its sum and substance to them in Telugu and when they pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed the case to be tried, posted the case for trial.
6.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 9, Exs.P1 to P6 are marked. No witnesses examined on behalf of defence. M.O.s 1 and 2 are marked.
7.On completion of evidence of prosecution, accused A1 and A2 questioned in examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C, on incriminating evidence to adduce for the defence. They denied the incriminating evidence and finally stated that they are nothing to do with this case and he had been falsely implicated in this case.
8.The point arises for consideration is “Whether the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the accused” ?
9.Point : It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased marriage was performed with A1 in the year 2006. They blessed one daughter. In the month of April,2007, A1 youngest brother marriage was 6 performed with huge dowry of Rs.25 lakhs. Since A1 and A2 harassed the deceased with physically and mentally demanded to get additional dowry from her parents, the same was informed to father of deceased on phone and due unbearable torture deceased committed suicide. But the accused denied total case of the prosecution. Therefore the burden lies on the prosecution.
10.PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the mother, PW3 is the elder brother and PW4 is the father of the deceased. PW5 is the mediator to the scene, seizure and inquest. PW6 is the Medical Officer.
Pw7 is the panch witness to the confession of A1, Pw8 is the Mandal
Revenue Officer who conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 4(PWs 1 to 3 and Sri Praveen
Kumar (LW4). PW9 is the investigation officer.
11.PW1 oral evidence is that he is retired government employee. A1 marriage with the deceased held at about five years ago.
Prior to three months death of deceased she and A1 having disputes with regard to the additional dowry. Two months prior to her death Pw1's brother's wife informed that A1 demanded dowry to deceased. On 148 2007 he received phone call from A1 stating that deceased committed suicide. He along with his family members went to Neredmet and found deceased was died.
12.PW2 oral evidence is that after marriage both of them lived together for some period. A1 's younger brother marriage was performed in the month of April,2007 then Pw2 daughter informed on phone that her cosister brought more dowry as such A1 and A2 demanded 7
additional dowry. This happened prior to two days of her death. Deceased
informed earlier two times that her cosister brought gold ornaments and
A1 and A2 demanded and she also informed that A1 and A2 demanded amounts to purchase plot at Bangalore. On 1482007 at morning hours
Pw1 received phone stating that his daughter committed suicide.
13.PW3 oral evidence is that A1 and deceased lived together happily prior to August,2007. His sister used to tell him that A1 and A2 harassed his sister for demanding money for purchasing the plot, the same was continued. On 1282007 his father informed that deceased made a phone call to his father and informed that A1 demanded money. On 148 2007 his uncle was informed about the death of his sister.
14.PW4 is the father of the deceased his oral evidence is that after marriage both of them lived at Chandragiri Colony. They lived together for a period of one year after that A1 and A2 started harassment to get more dowry as the younger brother of A1 got more dowry. In the month of April,2007 his daughter has telephoned and informed that A1 and A2 demanded additional dowry as they have given small amount at the time of marriage and intend to purchase the plot at Banglore. Two days prior to death of his daughter, his daughter made a phone call and asked him to arrange money to give the same to accused. On 1482007 at 10.30 a.m. he received phone call from PW1 and he informed that his daughter committed suicide. PW5 is the panch witness who present at the time of scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and seizure. Pw6 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined that the cause of death is due to hanging. Pw7 who is panch for 8 confessional statement of A1 not supported the case and he treated as hostile witness and crossexamined by the learned APP nothing was elicited. PW8 is the MRO who conducted scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest and recorded the statements of PWs 2,3, LW4 (Praveen Kumar) and Ashok Kumar (LW9). He summoned photographer and got photographed the dead body of the deceased. Pw9 is the investigation officer his evidence is nothing but narration of the investigation done by the charge sheet.
15.The learned APP argued that the evidence laid by the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and no material was elicited that the accused are innocent with the offences charged against them.
Learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The main ingredients of section 306 was not envisaged in the oral evidence of the prosecution as instigation, aiding and assistant of the accused for commission of the suicide not establish.
Therefore the accused entitled benefit of doubt.
16.In support of that he relied on reported citations
M.Mohan Vs.State of Dy.Supdt.of Police 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) 1 (SC),
w herein it was held that : “the witnesses have improved upon their earlier
statements is ignored, then also section 306 IPC is not attracted in the facts of the present case”. He further argued that the improvements of prosecution evidence comparing from the 161 statements is cannot be considered in support of that he relied on reported citations: P.Gangadhar Vs.State of A.P. 2006(1) ALD
(Crl.) Pg.No.493 (AP), wherein it was held that : “Fact deposed by witness
during trial not mentioned in FIR or statements recorded under section 161
9
Cr.P.C. It is an improvement and cannot be considered”. The relevant observation as follows: “When witnesses had no personal knowledge of
harassment, but only stated on hearsay statement of victim with respect to
the harassment meted out by her husband, is not admissible and does not
even attract Section 32 of the Evidence Act”. He further stated that All the
important witnesses are closely related to the deceased. Great caution is
necessary to scrutinize the evidence.
17. To support of that he relied on citation the Public
Prosecutor Vs.Pedepalli Sudarshan in Crl.A.No.142/90 (Short notes of cases),
wherein it was held that : all the important witnesses are interested witnesses
and they are close kith and kin of the deceased and particularly when the
deceased died due to drowning they would have suspicion against the parents
in law of the deceased and it is natural that due to their love and affection
they may depose alleging so many things against the parents in law of the
deceased. Therefore a great caution is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of
interested witnesses. Thus scrutinized, it is evident that the prosecution has
not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further argued
that the latches in evidence by adding new facts through its witness which are
not recorded in 161 Cr.P.C. statement is not permitted to support that he
relied on reported citation : M.Yadaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996
A.P.L.J.(Crl.)53 (HC). Wherein it was held that : Firstly I find that there is no
consistency with regard to the amount to gold demanded and secondly
through they have deposed that since they had promised before the marriage
to give the alleged gold and because it was not given, after the marriage there
was a demand from the side of the accused persons, but, surprisingly enough,
this important aspect of their statement is missing in their earlier statements
10
under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer, PW.11, who has
deposed very clearly that in the statements of P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 10 recorded
U/s.161 Cr.P.C. It is not stated by them that they had promised to give 11/2
tolas of gold more after the marriage. Thus this important omission in the
161 Cr.P.C. statement of these witnesses does go to indicate that what they
had deposed in this regard before the Court was nothing but an after,
thought and improvement. In other words, on this basis, it is clear that if
at all such a demand was there, it could not be linked to have been in
connection with the marriages as no promise or agreement at the time of
marriage or before or after the marriage could be established. Thus, I am of
the view that such demands, if at all they were there, would not fall within
the meaning of dowry, and even if all other requirements of Sec.304B of IPC
are satisfied, it would not be a dowry death. Further argued that the above
relied principles squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and the
accused are entitled benefit of doubt”.
18.Considering arguments of the both sides and perusal of material available in this case, it is observed that Pw1 gave complaint to the police, wherein it was mentioned that on receiving death intimation he went to the place where the deceased and husband are residing and found dead body, it is not a suicide as informed by the A1 and he suspecting some foul laid of her death, he suspected A1 and A2 as they have torched her and cause of suicide and request to investigate the case.
His statement was recorded by the ASI on 1482007, but there is no whisper about the harassment or dowry demand by the accused. In his oral evidence at the time of chief he categorically stated that prior to three 11 months of deceased and A1 having disputes with regard to the additional dowry. Two months of that his brother's wife informed that A1 demanded dowry to deceased. The same were elicited in the crossexamination of
Pw1 as omission. The said part of material was newly introduced by PW 1.
19.PW2,3 and 4 are the mother, brother and father of deceased.
They categorically stated that the deceased informed by phone as A1 and
A2 demanded additional dowry. The main crux of the case is that the marriage of the younger brother of A1 was performed recently prior to the incident, inlaws of the A1's brother provided huge dowry on seeing that
A1 and A2 demanded additional dowry from the deceased and also demanded amounts to purchase plot at Banglore. The said facts stated in the oral evidence. Now it has been seen as alleged by the other side there were such material in earlier statements recorded by the MRO who is Pw8 and ACP. Because during the course of investigation, on requisition to
Pw8, she recorded the statement of Pws 2 and 3, LW4 Praveen Kumar and Ashok Kumar(LW9). The statements of the PW2 recorded by the
Pw8 on 1482007 reveals that since the date of marriage till the death of the deceased on 1382009 the deceased did not inform anything against
A1 and A2. On enquiry A1 informed that A1 and deceased were disputes with regard to the their marital life. Therefore, to the effect of the said disputes their daughter commit suicide. Whereas the statement recorded by the ACP on 1682008 i.e. after two days of earlier statement, he change her version and stated that A1 and A2 demanded dowry as A1's brother received Rs.25 lakhs towards dowry.
12
20.PW2 mother of the deceased stated that the said incident informed by her husband as deceased informed the same to him.
Pw3 also stated that her father informed about the demand on dowry, when the deceased informed the same to him. Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of the Pws 2 and 3 recorded by the ACP clears that PW4 informed that the harassment caused by the A1 and A2 to the deceased.
21.Now it is stage to scrutinized the evidence of the PW4, who is crucial witness to the prosecution case because it is revealed that the deceased informed about the harassment of A1 and A2 to his father who is PW4. Wherein it was mentioned that A1 and A2 harassed the deceased physically and mentally stating that she brought insufficient dowry. The same was informed by the deceased to his family members in one occasion. Again in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement it was mention that on 1282007 deceased made phone call that A2 purchased plot at
Banglore for that they were intend to purchase the plot. He did not give any complaint to the police prior to his daughter's death. But whereas the oral evidence of Pw1 reveals that two days prior to the death of his daughter she made a phone call and asked him to arrange money to give same to the accused. On 1482007 at 10.30 a.m. he received phone call from Pw1 and he informed that his daughter committed suicide.
Therefore the important material with respect to the commission of suicide inconsistence in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and earlier statement of the Pw4. Further in his crossexamination he admitted that he cannot say specific date when accused demanded dowry, he did not state before the police that in the month of April,2007 his daughter informed on phone 13 that A1 and A2 demanded additional dowry as we have given small dowry and they were intend to purchase the plot. The said admissions clears that it is contradiction from his oral evidence and Sec.161 Cr.P.C.
statement and admission in the crossexamination not corroborated to each other. Further he admitted that entire conversation in between him and his daughter on phone.
22.Pws 1 to 4 contended that there are some other marks on the dead body of the deceased and suspected her death. PW6 is the Medical
Officer is the correct person to say about the postmortem injury and antimortem injury over the dead body. He categorically stated that there are ligature mark found on the dead body. Except that no injuries as alleged by the prosecution witness in Pw6 and evidence as well as Ex.P5 certificate. He opined that the cause of death was due to hanging.
23.First charge against the accused is U/s.498A IPC to substantiate that the prosecution has to be established that accused demanded dowry and caused harassment deceased mentally and physically. As observed above PW4 is the only witness alleging that the deceased informed about the mentally and physically harassment. There is no specific allegations and sufficient evidence with regard to the mental and physical harassment as alleged by the prosecution. Further there is no single incident date or particular time has not given by the Pw4 stated
before the Court, except that the deceased informed to Pw4 that A1 and
A2 harassment her. Therefore it is clear that except PW4 evidence there is no other proof to show that there was dowry demand or mental and physical harassment. Pw2 mother of the deceased stated that deceased 14 informed earlier two times that her cosister brought gold ornaments and
A1 and A2 demanded the same to deceased. Further there is no independent witness was examined to prove that effect as such the evidence of Pws 1 to 4, who are close relatives of the deceased is remind.
Therefore principle laid in relied citation page no. 53 squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Similarly there are inconsistence material in between Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness and oral evidence of the Pws 1 to 4. Therefore the principle laid relied on citations 2006 (1)
ALD (Crl.) Pg.No.493 (A) and 1996 APLJ (Crl.) Pg.No.53 squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.
24.Coming to the charge U/s.306 IPC against the accused to prove that the prosecution has established that instigation, aiding or assistants for committing suicide. But there is no such material elicited from the oral evidence of the prosecution that A1 and A2 aided and instigated to commit to the suicide. Therefore principle laid down in reported relied by the accused in 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) Pg.No.1 (SC) squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.
25.In view of the above observation this Court feels that the prosecution tried to prove guilt of the accused but failed to establish the same through cogent and positive evidence. Further contradictions and omissions elicited during the crossexamination are material omissions and contradictions, those are in significance and effect case of prosecution.
Hence the prosecution failed to guilt of the accused.
26.In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.306 and 498A of IPC and they are acquitted U/s.235(1) 15
Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and 2 (Two pieces Chunni and scissor) shall be destroyed after time is over. Bail bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 10th day of January, 2012.
III ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE(F.T.C.)
R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION
PW1 : Ramlal Agarwal PW2 : Jyothi Latha PW3 : Niraj Agarwal PW4 : Puroshotham Das PW5: Syed. Kudbuddin PW6: Dr.P.Sriramulu PW7: P.Narsimha PW8: K.Ratna Kalyani PW9: P.Prabhakar Rao
FOR DEFENCE
None
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint to the police Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Ex.P4: Inquest Ex.P5: PME Ex.P6: FIR
FOR DEFENCE:
NIL MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1:Two pieces chunni M.O.2:Scissor
III ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE (F.T.C.)
R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
16