Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vemula Vamsi Kumar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.By Pp., on 7 February, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.779 OF 2006
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the first Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, challenging the judgment, dated 18.04.2006, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the present petitioner (A1) is concerned, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Sessions Case No.386 of 2003 before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3) The present petitioner along with A.2 and A.3 faced charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore and the learned Judge acquitted A.3 under Section 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C" for short) for the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge convicted the present petitioner along with A.2 under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 2 of I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge also sentenced A.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The learned Judge directed that both the sentences of A.1 and A.2 shall run concurrently. When A.1 and A.2 filed a Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, the Criminal Appeal insofar as A.2 is concerned was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence, but insofar as the present petitioner is concerned was dismissed.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, pertaining to P.R.C.No.31 of 2003, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate 3 of First Class, Nellore, according to the contents of the charge sheet is as follows:
(i) The A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3. They are resident of Nellore. One Muppala Sulakshna (hereinafter will be referred to as "deceased") is the wife of A.1 and belonged to Harijana caste.
L.W1-Muppala Venkatadri (P.W.2) is the father of deceased. L.W.2-Muppala Nagabhushanamma (P.W.3) is the mother of deceased. L.W.3-Kami Aruna is the elder sister and L.W.4- Muppala Asleesha (P.W.4) is second sister of deceased. The deceased fell in love with A.1 and their marriage was done on 20.09.1999 at Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tirupati without consent of the parents i.e., L.Ws.1 and 2. After the marriage, they went to the house of complainant, who is working as a clerk in Punjab National Bank, Nellore. He kept them separately in a house. After some days, they went to the house of A.1 and started residing there for three months. After that both the deceased and A.1 went to the house of L.W.1 and informed that her father-in- law behaved vulgarly. Then, L.W.1 pacified the issue and sent them to the house of A.1. In the meantime, L.W.1 was transferred to Tirupati.
(ii) On 06.07.2002 the deceased went to her parents' house and informed that her husband (A.1) and his parents i.e., A.2 and A.3 harassed her both mentally and physically for getting money 4 and if not, they would perform second marriage to A.1 with daughter of cousin of A.1. L.W.1 pacified her and sent her back. The deceased unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment decided to commit suicide and accordingly, she committed suicide on 10.09.2002 at 7-45 p.m. to 8-00 p.m. on 10th Lane, Lakeview Colony, Nellore in the house of accused by hanging. On 11.09.2002 at 2-00 a.m., L.W.2 along with her second daughter went to Tirupati and informed to L.W.1 that the deceased was in serious condition. They rushed to Nellore at 5-00 a.m. on 11.09.2002 and they went to the house of the deceased and found her dead body lying on a mat. They are informed that their daughter went to the bath room and committed suicide by hanging herself to the hook of the bath room at 7-45 p.m., on 10.09.2002. Then L.W.1 suspected the character of A.1 to A.3.
(iii) Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.15-the Sub Inspector of Police, registered it as a case in Crime No.236 of 2002 under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. on 11.09.2002 at 5-00 a.m. and submitted FIRs. L.W.16-the Inspector of Police took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. L.W.14-M. Dharma Rao, Mandal Executive Magistrate (M.R.O) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Medical 5 Officer conducted autopsy and found that the deceased would appears to have been died of asphyxia due to hanging. L.W.16 arrested A.1 to A.3 on 15.09.2002 during the investigation and sent them for remand. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore took the case on file and after complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and thereupon the case was numbered as Sessions Case and was made over to Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore. On appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore, charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. were framed and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6) The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they denied the same. A.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.
7) On hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charges and 6 accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as above, but, acquitted A.3. Then, the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, before the Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, which was allowed insofar as A.2 is concerned and was dismissed insofar as the present Revision Petitioner (A.1) is concerned. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful A.1 in Sessions Case No.386 of 2003 and first appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
8) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with such judgment?
Point:-
9) Ms. Maheswari Harika, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the learned Sessions Judge having rightly acquitted A.2, but, erred in dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by A.1. In fact, according to the evidence of P.W.2, the police before his lodging report came to the scene of offence and the said discrepancy is not explained by the Court. Without there being any legally admissible evidence, basing on the assumptions and presumptions, the learned 7 Additional Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the present petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, without proper appreciation erred in dismissing the Criminal Appeal. In fact, the deceased was of a sensitive lady who had tendency for commission of suicide. In fact, having felt humiliation in the hands of her parents only, she was compelled to commit suicide and there was no fault on the part of the present petitioner, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
10) In support of the case of the present Revision Petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab1, (2) Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 and (3) M. Mohan vs. State, Tr.Dy.Supdt. of Police3.
11) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, rightly convicted him of the charges and he also convicted A.2, but the learned Sessions Court, Nellore on overall appreciation of the evidence on record, exonerated A.2 of the charges and after thoroughly discussing the 1 2016 (0)SCJ Online (SC) 977 2 2010 LawSuits (SC) 1 3 2011 (2) SCJ 744 8 evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the present petitioner and P.Ws.2 and 3, father and mother of deceased respectively, clearly supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence on record clearly proves the guilt against the present petitioner, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
12) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the death of the deceased was on account of suicide.
P.W.1, who is a neighbor, who turned hostile, even deposed that the deceased committed suicide. According to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the deceased committed suicide. There is evidence of P.W.4, the second sister of deceased, to speak to the fact that the deceased committed suicide. P.W.5 is Doctor in Lakeview Colony, Nellore, who examined the deceased after commission of suicide and found her dead. He spoken the same in his evidence. P.W.6 is the inquest panchayatdar, who did not support the case of the prosecution, whose hostility is proved by the prosecution by virtue of the evidence of the investigating officer. But, he deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. There is evidence of P.W.7, the Medical Officer, stating that the deceased died due to asphyxia by hanging. There is evidence of P.W.8, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who was present at the time of conducting 9 inquest and spoken the observations in the inquest. There is also evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer. The cause of death of the deceased was never in dispute before the trial Court. So, it is clear that the death of the deceased was on account of the suicide.
13) The place of death of the deceased is also not in dispute i.e., in the house of in-laws house where A.1 to A.3 were residing together. The commission of the act of the deceased in committing suicide by her was in the bath room, which is also not in dispute.
14) Before going to appreciate the case of the prosecution as to the allegations against the present petitionerit becomes necessary for this Court to look into the contention of the Revision Petitioner that even before lodging of Ex.P.2, police came to the scene of offence and it was not considered by the trial Court.
15) Coming to the testimony of P.W.2 in chief examination he deposed that after reaching Nellore and after seeing the dead body of the deceased, he lodged a report, which is Ex.P.2. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that at first he narrated about the incident to police and thereupon, the police asked him to give in writing and then he prepared a report and submitted to police. It is true that before 10 giving report to the police, police came to the scene of offence. So, the evidence of P.W.2 means that the police came to the scene of offence and when he narrated the incident, police asked him to give a written report. I find no abnormality insofar as this aspect is concerned. The offence under Sections 498-A and 307 of I.P.C. are cognizable. When the police came to know about the commission of suicide by a married woman, there was nothing wrong on their part to come to the place and asked P.W.2 to give a report in writing clearly.
16) P.W.9 is the person, who registered FIR. His evidence is that on 09.11.2002 at 5-00 a.m., while he was on duty in the police station, P.W.2 came to the police station and presented Ex.P.2 report. He registered the same as FIR and Ex.P.8 is FIR. During the course of cross examination, he deposed that he made some corrections in the time. The so-called corrections made by P.W.9 cannot be taken as a deliberate one. It is not a case where there was any delay in lodging the report. During cross examination he denied that the report given by P.W.2 was kept aside and statement was recorded by him to tune the case of the prosecution.
17) It is to be noticed that Ex.P.2 is not a statement, but, it is written report. What P.W.2 deposed in cross examination is that when he tried to narrate the incident to police, they asked 11 him to give a report in writing and accordingly he presented Ex.P.2, report. As seen from Ex.P.2, it is a written report, but it is not a statement. So, the defence wanted to take benefit corrections in Ex.P.2 as that of serious which is not tenable. Apart from this, the defence tried to put forth a contention as if police obtained a statement from P.W.2, which is not correct, in view of the above. Hence, the above said issue is not gonging to affect the case of the prosecution in any way.
18) Now turning to the crucial allegations in the case of the prosecution, admittedly, the evidence available to prove the charges are of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased. P.W.4 is one of the sisters of the deceased, who could speak the factum of the marriage between the deceased and A.1.
19) The substance of the evidence of P.W.2 is that on 29.09.1999 marriage of his deceased daughter with A.1 took place at Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tirupati. After the marriage, his daughter joined with A.1 at Nellore. 15 days after the marriage, his daughter and A.1 came to his house and both of them informed to him that A.2, the father of A.1 harassed his daughter and he wants to have sexual intercourse with her. They also intimated the same to L.W.2. So, A.1 and his daughter put up a separate family in Lakeview Colony, Nellore. They lead marital life happily. After one month, A.1 got down his daughter in his 12 house and went away stating that unless Rs.50,000/- is brought, he would not allow his daughter into the house. Then, he expressed his inability to do so. When he informed the same to A.2, father of A.1, A.2 took his daughter to his house. On request, he (P.W.2) joined her in Intermediate in Tirupati. She completed Intermediate. She spent the entire expenses during her studies at Tirupati. In February, 2002, he was transferred to Tirupati. Later, his daughter joined in Degree at Nellore. On one day his daughter informed him by phone that her husband harassed her, demanded further dowry and also asked her to terminate her pregnancy. She stated that she would come to Tirupati to live along with him. He advised his daughter not to come to Tirupati as his wife was residing at Pulivendula, as another daughter is a bank employee at Pulivendula. On 10.09.2002 mid night his wife and second daughter came to Tirupati and informed that his deceased daughter was in serious condition. Immediately all of them came to Nellore and found his daughter as dead in the house of accused. Accused stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the bath room. Then he suspected and lodged Ex.P.2.
20) The evidence of P.W.3, the mother of deceased and the husband of P.W.2, is also similar as that of the evidence of P.W.2. She further testified that when she (P.W.3) was in 13 Pulivendula, she received information that her daughter is in serious condition. Then she and L.W.4 came to Tirupati and from there they went to Nellore along with P.W.2 and in the house of accused, they found their daughter dead. P.W.2 gave report to police.
21) P.W.4, another sister of deceased, testified about the factum of marriage between A.1 and her deceased sister and her co-employee informed her that they received information through phone that her younger sister is in serious condition. During mid night, then she along with her mother went to Tirupati and from there along with P.W.2 came to Nellore and found her sister dead. Her father presented the report to police.
22) P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that marriage between A.1 and deceased was a love marriage and he (P.W.2) belonged to Schedule Caste and accused belonged to Velama community, but he does not know the love affair. He does not know the financial status of the accused. His daughter wanted to study M.B.B.S., but in the meantime, she fell in love with A.1. He denied a suggestion that A.1 paid the fee for the educational expenses of deceased at Tirupati. The deceased used to visit the house of accused at Nellore and also her sister at Pulivendula. He denied a suggestion that his wife did not look after the deceased 14 properly as the marriage was not with her interest and that the deceased was very sensitive. A.1 and the deceased were living separately two or three houses away from the house of A.2 and A.3. Insofar as the dowry is concerned, A.2 and A.3 have nothing to do with the said allegations and their concern is only against A.1.
23) Turning to the evidence of P.W.3 in cross examination she deposed that her daughter got a rank in 10th class but she does not know when she got the 5th rank. A.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- for his business. She denied that she did not look after her daughter well and did not cooperate for her studies. She denied that she is deposing false.
24) It is to be noticed that the crucial allegation against the Revision Petitioner is that he used to demand the deceased to bring dowry and at one occasion he left her at her parents' house with a demand that the amount is not paid, the deceased will not be taken. Another allegation is that he pressurized the deceased to go for abortion when she got pregnancy. It is the specific evidence of P.W.2 that through phone call, he learnt that A.1 was pressurizing her to terminate her pregnancy. The defence counsel subjected P.W.2 in this regard to probing cross examination. During the probing cross examination, he deposed that before joining his daughter in Intermediate, she became pregnant and at 15 that time A.1 asked her to terminate the pregnancy, but father of A.1 raised objection not to terminate the pregnancy. He further testified that he came to know about the first pregnancy of his daughter when she informed that A.1 asked him to terminate the second pregnancy. So, according to P.W.2, he came to know the first pregnancy when A.1 asked the deceased to terminate even the second pregnancy. These are all the answers elicited during the cross examination, for which no contraversion was suggested to P.W.2 during the cross examination that A.1 did not ask the deceased to terminate the pregnancy twice.
25) Apart from this, it is a case where P.Ws.2 and 3 fairly admitted that insofar as allegations of dowry is concerned, they have no grievance whatsoever against A.2 and A.3, the parents of A.1. Their grievance at one point of time was against A.2 on the ground that he behaved vulgarly with deceased when the deceased and A.1 gone to the house of A.2 and A.3 during the first fortnight of the marriage. Hence, this Court found any amount of consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The fact that their grievance is only against A.1 regarding the allegations of dowry shows any amount of truth in their evidence. If really they had any evil intention, they would not have spared A.2 and A.3 and that they would have alleged against A.2 and A.3, that they also demanded dowry from the deceased. Having looked into 16 the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that P.Ws.2 and 3 are reliable witnesses insofar as their case that A.1 demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry, etc.
26) Apart from this, the fact that A.1 used to insist the deceased to terminate her pregnancy is quietly established by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2 that he came to know about the termination of the first pregnancy when his daughter intimated to him that A.1 insisted to terminate the second pregnancy, remained unchallenged further during the course of probing cross examination. It is to be noticed that the marriage between A.1 and the daughter of P.W.2 was love marriage against the wishes of parents of both of them. In such circumstances, the case is of such a nature that the deceased with all difficulties and against the wishes of parents decided to sail with A.1. In such circumstances, the act of A.1 in insisting the deceased to go for termination of pregnancy even against the wishes of A.2 is nothing but an act which would certainly drive the deceased to commit suicide.
27) Apart from this, it is a case where the deceased could found love and affection from her parents, because, when she and A.1 within 15 days after the marriage gone back to P.Ws.2 and 3, they took them into the fold and arranged a residence separately. 17 It is also borne out by from the evidence of P.W.2 that he provided education to the deceased at Tirupati by joining her in Intermediate even after marriage. So, the contention of the petitioner that the deceased felt humiliated on account of the act of P.Ws.2 and 3 and that they disliked the marriage, etc., cannot stands to any reason. On the other hand, the evidence points out finger against A.1 that when the deceased joined with him with fond hope even against the wishes of her parents, he did not treat her properly and subjected her to cruelty.
28) The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with reference to the allegations in Ex.P.2 as regards the allegations of demand of dowry and the allegation that A.1 insisted the deceased to go for termination of pregnancy is fully convincing. The above said acts are nothing but one which can drive a woman for commission of suicide.
29) It is to be noticed that the present petitioner (A.1) examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2. Ex.D.1 is the so-called diary in the hands of the deceased and Ex.D.2 is the so-called letter. He did not spell out the circumstances how he came into custody of Ex.D.2 when it was sent to a different person. The contention of the prosecution is that these documents are fabricated to suit the defence. Admittedly, A.1 did not venture to bring these documents to the 18 notice of the investigating officer. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, A.1 miserably failed to establish the bonafidies of Exs.D.1 and D.2.
30) In Gurcharan Singh's case (1 supra), the factual aspects obviously stands in different footing where there was a suicide note alleging that the deceased was deprived of the share in the property, etc., it cannot be made applicable to the present case on hand. Turning to Gangula Mohan Reddy's case (2 supra), the allegations were that an agricultural labourer was subjected to harassment on allegations of theft of some gold ornaments. It is also not applicable to the present case on hand. Coming to M. Mohan's case (3 supra) it has nothing to do with the present facts and circumstances in the case on hand. However, in the above three decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the essential ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. In this case, in my considered view, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, which is totally believable, is establishing the essential ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C.
31) The date of marriage of the deceased was on 20.09.1999 and she committed suicide on 10.09.2002, which is evidently within three years. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 runs as follows:
19
1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
32) This provision in the Indian Evidence Act was introduced by Act 46 of 1983 and it has come into force from 25.12.1983. Here the fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage that too in the house of A.1 is categorically established by the prosecution. The allegations in Ex.P.2 are proved by the prosecution by examining P.Ws.2 and 3 whose evidence is convincing. So, the prosecution has the benefit of presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, which is convincing and which proves 20 the fact that the commission of suicide by deceased was nothing but on accounts of A.1 which driven her to commit suicide, even the case of the prosecution is further strengthened by virtue of the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act.
33) Viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered view that insofar as the Revision Petitioner is concerned, the prosecution has categorically established the charges against him before the Court below beyond reasonable doubt and the judgments of both the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004 does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The learned Sessions Judge rightly looked into the facts and circumstances and with valid reasons, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the said judgment.
34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
35) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the 21 petitioner/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.145 of 2004, dated 18.04.2006 and to report compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 07.02.2023.
PGR 22 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.779 OF 2006 Date: 07.02.2023 PGR