Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mygapulla Satyanarayana vs State Of A.P. on 23 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)DMC489
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Mygapula Satyanarayana, accused No, 1, who is the sole appellant, filed the present criminal appeal, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Sessions Case No. 348 of 1997 dated 25.9.1998.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Venkata Satyavathi, aged 19 years, is the daughter of Borra Nageswara Rao and Borra Seetharatnam, A-l is the son of A-2 and A-3. A-4 is the daughter of A-2 and A-3 and sister of A-l. A-l is the husband of the deceased. A-2 and A-3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The marriage between Mygapula Satyavathi and A-l was celebrated on 25.1.1996 at the temple of Lord Venkateswaraswamy situated at Annavarappadu village of Peravali Mandal. At the time of marriage, Borra Nageswara Rao agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as dowry to the accused, as per the demand of the accused. But due to insufficient funds, he gave Rs. 10,000/-, at the time of the marriage as dowry amount, besides paying necessary lanchanams to A-l and requested him that he will pay the balance amount in due course. After that, A-l along with A-2 and A-4, brought the deceased to Duvva village, where A-l and the deceased continued their marital life peacefully for three months in A-2's house at Duvva. After three months, A-l started harassment and tortured the deceased, both mentally and physically, and started beating her for bringing the balance dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-. A-2 to A-4 strongly supported A-l end for this object they used criminal force and physical harassment over the deceased for dowry. The parents of the deceased convinced the deceased that they will pay the balance dowry amount soon and asked to go to Duvva on several occasions, whenever the deceased used to visit Malleswaram to the house of her parents. A-l developed illicit intimacy with one Lakshmi of Duvva village, and went way with her for one month and returned to Duvva 15 days prior to the date of present offence. After his return, the accused started harassing the deceased abnormally for that promised amount and for getting more dowry from her parents. A-3 and A-4 who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased used to harass the deceased for petty matters, as well as for more dowry. A-2 sported the acts of A-3 and A-4. A-l warned the deceased to bring Rs. 10,000/-from her parents otherwise he will go in marriage with another lady for more dowry. The deceased disgusted over her life and decided to put an end to her life. On the night of 29.4.1997, the deceased consumed some pesticide poison at the house of he; in-laws in Duvva village and fell down on the floor, and while struggling for life, A-l to A-3 took her to the local private doctor and he refused to give treatment and advised them to go to Government Hospital. Then, A-l to A-3 took the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Bharathi Devi at Tanuku. By that time, the deceased took her last breath.
3. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 18 had been recorded. Exs. P-1 to P-29 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked and Exs. D-l to D-3 were marked.
4. Heard Mr. C. Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the material available on record, even prior to P.W. 1 giving report, there was a report given by the then President, and the same was suppressed, and hence, the very First Information Report is suspicious. The learned Counsel further submitted that the version of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused No. 1 went away with one Lakshmi, but absolutely there is no evidence in this regard. In relation to harassment except the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, which is more in the nature of hearsay, there is no other acceptable evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also would submit that just on the strength of presumption, conviction cannot be sustained, especially in the light of the fact that an acquittal has been recorded on the self-same evidence as against A-2 to A-4.
6. Reliance also was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the following decisions in relation to suppression of the first report:
(1) Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, . (2) Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, . (3) Bandi Mallaiah and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1980 Crl. ,L.J. 914 (SC).
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the following decisions in relation to proof of the charge under Section 304-B, I.P.C.:
(1) Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. v. A. Madhava Reddy, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl) 590 (AP).
(2) Sunil Bajaj v. State of M.P., II (2001) DMC 744=2001 (2) ALD (Crl) 711 (SC).
(3) Hira Lal and Ors. v. State (Government of NCT) Delhi, III (2003) CCR 41 (SC)=IV (2003) SLT 594=2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 184 (SC).
(4) Penchala Sadaiah and Ors. v. State of A.P., 2003(2) ALD (Crl) 332 (AP).
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that there is clear evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the age of the deceased may also have to be taken into consideration, and in view of the young age, there is no other reason for the deceased to commit suicide, except for the dowry harassment, which has been established by the prosecution.
9. P.W. 1, no doubt deposed about the management to give Rs. 10,000/- at the time to marriage to A-l to A-3 and also agreed to deposit the remaining Rs. 10,000/- within one year of the marriage in the name of his daughter, and he failed to deposit the amount and his deceased daughter used to report stating that A-l to A-4 were harassing her to bring the remaining dowry, and this witness also deposed about demanding Sunglass Cot and also deposed that he gave Rs. 1,500/- to purchase cycle, one cot and one box. He also promised her that he will send the remaining amount soon and this witness also deposed that A-l eloped with another girl by name Lakshmi belonging to Duvva and A-l set up family with Lakshmi in Kovvur and he is working at Rajahmundry and he had deposed about the other details how he received the information that his daughter consumed pesticides, and went along with his wife and brother-in-law and the mouth of the corpus was opened. A-l to A-4 poured the pesticide into the mouth of his daughter forcibly. This witness was supported by the evidence of P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1.
10. In substance, this is the evidence, which is available on record in relation to harassment No doubt, P.W. 3 also deposed that at the time of alliance, P.W. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to A-l to A-3 and also agreed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the name of the deceased and they failed to deposit the amount. P.W. 4 also had deposed to the same effect as deposed by P.W. 3.
11. P.W. -5 is the Police Constable and he deposed that P.W. 2 is his elder sister and P.W. 3 is his younger sister and P.W. 1 is his brother-in-law and this witness also deposed about these details and also deposed that when he met the deceased Satyavathi at his sister's house, she told that A-l was harassing her on the ground that she became abese and failed to get sufficient dowry.
12. P.W. 6 was, declared hostile. Likewise, P.W. 7 also was declared hostile.
13. P.W. 8 is the photographer, who deposed about Exs. P-4 to P-7 photos and Exs. P-8 to P-11 negatives. P.W. 9 is the V.A.O., who deposed about the recovery of' M.Os. 11, 10, 5, 6, 4, 7, 8, 3, 2, 1, and his drafting observation report Ex. P-12 and Satyanarayan attesting Ex. P-12, and drafting inquest report-Ex, P-13. P.W. 10 is the M.R.O., who conducted the inquest. The Inquestdars opined that due to harassment for additional dowry by the husband and in-laws, the deceased consumed the pesticide and died. Panchayatdars also attested Ex. P-13 and he also signed Ex. P-12 and he sent dead body for postmortem examination.
14. P.W. 11 is the Junior Civil Judge, who recorded the statements under Section 164, Cr. P.C. P.W. 12 is the Deputy Civil Surgeon, who had deposed about the injuries, and issuing Ex. P-24-post-mortem certificate and Ex. P-25 the final opinion. P.W. 13 is the Executive Officer of the Venkateswaraswamy Temple, who deposed about the marriage and issuance of Ex. P-26-certificate to the father off the deceased. P.W. 14 is the constable. P.W. 15 is another constable. P.W. 16 is the S.I. of Police. who deposed that he had conducted investigation and the further investigation was handed over to the in-charge D.S.P. P.W. 17 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who deposed that he was present along with P.W. 12 and conducted postmortem examination over the dead body and he signed Ex. P-29 along with P.W. 12. P.W. 18 is the Sub-Divisional Officer, who filed the charge-sheet. This is evidence available on record.
15 The learned Judge, on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 18 and Exs. P-l to P-29 and Exs, D-l to D-3 and M.Os. 1 to 11, acquitted A2 to A-4, but convicted A-l under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
16. It is pertinent to note that P.Ws. 6 and 7 were declared hostile. The other witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 are close relatives. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and even otherwise the nature of evidence, which has been let in by the prosecution is more in the nature of hearsay, as to what these witnesses were communicated relating to harassment. This evidence let in by the prosecution in relation to A-2 to A-4 had been disbelieved and acquittal had been recorded, by A-l alone was convicted by the learned Judge. If any acceptable evidence is there relating to harassment, inclusive of the version 6f the prosecution that this man had illicit intimacy with Lakshmi and had been living elsewhere for some time, there could have been some material to make out a case against appellant/A-l. Except the vague statements, absolutely there is no cogent evidence placed on record in this direction and even in relation to harassment, the consistent evidence is that some amount had been paid and the rest of the amount could not be deposited. None of the independent witnesses had been examined in relation this harassment. Unless there is some legally acceptable evidence, on the strength of taking aid of presumption alone, conviction under Section 304-B and Section 498-A, I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
17. On a careful scrutiny of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the findings recorded in relation to A-2 to A-4 also would enure to the benefit of A-l, since he also stands on the same footing. Except the additional dowry factor and living away by having illicit intimacy with one Lakshmi, there is no acceptable evidence before the Court. Hence, in the light of the evidence recorded by the learned Judge, especially not placing reliance on these witnesses in relation to harassment by A-2 to A-4, the same stand has to be applied even in the case of A-l. The episode of demand for the additional dowry and the incident of taking away Lakshmi had not established by acceptable evidence. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard, placing reliance on the presumption and convicting A-l alone, definitely cannot be sustained and accordingly, the conviction and sentence against A-l are liable to be set aside.
18. In the result the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against A-l by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru are hereby set aside. Accordingly, A-l is acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. bail bonds shall stand cancelled.