Telangana High Court
Pirangi Bikshapathi, Vaddepally V, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 13 March, 2024
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1744 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction recorded under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to under undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years vide judgment in S.C.No.191 of 2006 dated 11.12.2009 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak.
2. The deceased is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and wife of the appellant. Deceased and appellant's marriage had taken place three years prior to her death. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, who are mother and father of the deceased, Rs.1.00 lakh cash, 15 tulas of gold, 50 tulas silver and other household articles were given as dowry. After marriage, they lived happily for six months. Appellant started harassing for additional dowry, for which, Rs.10,000/- was given. The deceased stayed with her parents since she was pregnant for five months. She gave birth to a male child. Thereafter appellant went to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and beat the deceased for Rs.10,000/-. The next day, the appellant took her to the house of his sister Gangamma. There also, the appellant had beaten her for money. From there he took the deceased to their village and on the next day, she tried committing suicide by burning herself. While 2 undergoing treatment, she died in the hospital. The mother of the deceased/P.W.1 filed a complaint on 11.12.2005, a day after the death of the deceased, which was registered for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
3. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and P.W.3 is an independent witness. They have spoken regarding prosecution case about harassment by the appellant after marriage for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also the Dying Declaration Ex.P11, found that the appellant was guilty for the offence of abetting death of the deceased by demanding additional dowry. Unable to bear the said constant demand for additional dowry deceased committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and the only evidence which is forthcoming is the Dying Declaration which was recorded by the Magistrate. However, the said Dying Declaration cannot be considered for the reason of the deceased not being in a position to give statement to the Magistrate when she was suffering with 90% burn injuries. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 3 Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and others v. State of West Bengal (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 202, wherein it was held that it should be shown that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry to record conviction under section 304B of IPC. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana ((2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 128), Manoharlal V. State of Haryana ((2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 645).
6. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampat Babso Kale and another v. The State of Maharashtra ((2019) 4 SCC 739), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case in which the victim suffered 98% burn injuries and sedatives were injected, the Supreme Court held that possibility of there being a sedative delusion could not be ruled out. Counsel also relied on the judgment of Baijnath and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only for the reason of there being unnatural death, it is not sufficient to convict either under Section 304-B or 498-A of IPC, unless harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 4
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that it was endorsed by the Doctor that the statement made by the deceased to the Magistrate was in a fit state of mind, as such, conviction recorded on the basis of the Dying Declaration and also the independent witness P.W.3 cannot be found fault with.
8. In cases of dowry deaths, the necessary ingredients to attract the provision under Section 304-B of IPC are:
a) Death should have been otherwise than under natural circumstances within seven years of marriage;
b) She should have been subjected to harassment or cruelty by the husband or his relatives;
c) The said harassment meted out should be in connection with demand for dowry.
9. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, to convict an accused for the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC. Specific events have to be narrated and the witnesses should speak about demand for any dowry and subsequent harassment to fulfill such demand for dowry, which would constitute an offence of causing dowry death. 5
10. The witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken about Rs.10,000/- which was paid to the appellant six months after the marriage. Thereafter, it is stated that demand for Rs.10,000/- was again made and the appellant used to beat her for the said demand. A solitary incident of beating is stated in the complaint and also in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 that appellant went to the village to bring back the deceased and at that time, he had beaten the deceased in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. However, the Investigating Officer/P.W.12 admitted that P.W.1 has not stated that on 07.05.2005 when deceased and appellant went to Ilapur village and asked for Rs.10,000/-, the said amount was towards dowry.
11. In the Dying Declaration made, the deceased stated that the appellant used to beat her for Rs.10,000/-. However, on the day on which she burnt herself, the appellant consumed liquor and asked her whether she had brought the amount without stating the quantum. In drunken condition, the deceased was beaten up. Aggrieved by the said beating, according to the Dying Declaration, she committed suicide.
12. As seen from the Dying Declaration, the Doctor who endorsed in the Dying Declaration that the patient was conscious and coherent while recording the statement was not examined. The details of her medication are not known.
6
13. It is not specifically stated in the Dying Declaration that the amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded towards additional dowry by the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge finding that demand for Rs.10,000/- would mean that it was for additional dowry, cannot be accepted. In the Dying Declaration the deceased stated that when the appellant was in drunken condition and asked for money without specifying the amount and beat her, she poured kerosene on to herself and died. In the entire statement made, there is no mention of demand of Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry in the Dying Declaration. In the complaint made on the next day on her death, it is stated that Rs.10,000/- was given six months after the marriage.
14. The narration in the complaint and also in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased was beaten for additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 is an omission in their earlier statements as admitted by the Investigating Officer. The fact remains that the appellant had beaten the deceased for money prior to her committing suicide. Since it cannot be specifically said that said beating was towards demand for additional dowry, the requirement of harassment pursuant to demand for additional dowry made punishable under Section 304-B of IPC is not met. However, it is apparent that the appellant was harassing her and also beating the deceased for money in 7 a drunken condition. In the said circumstances, cruelty is established. However, it cannot be said that the said beating or asking for money from the deceased was towards additional dowry when it is not specifically stated. For the said reason, conviction under Section 304-B of IPC is set aside. However, the appellant is sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, for which offence appellant is now convicted. Though, no separate charge is framed under Section 498-A IPC, the charge framed under Section 304-B IPC gives details of the harassment by the appellant towards the deceased, which is sufficient compliance of making the appellant know of the charge for which he was tried.
15. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13.03.2024.
kvs