Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Telagareddi Nagaraju 4 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 22 January, 2020
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRL.A.NO.192 OF 2010
JUDGMENT
A-1 to A-5 in S.C.No.188 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, are the appellants herein. They were originally tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 and 304-B of IPC. Vide judgment dated 01.02.2010, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted accused under both the counts and sentenced A-2 to A-5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and A-1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, while sentencing all the five accused for a period of one year under Section 498-A IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 06.08.2004 at Aushapur, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangarerddy District, they caused death of one Telagareddy Padma, within seven years of her marriage, by subjecting her to cruelty, apart from demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of witnesses, are as follows: A-1 is the husband of the deceased, A-2 is the mother, A-3 and A- 4 are the sisters, and A-5 is the maternal grandmother of A-1. While A-1 and A-2 are the natives of Malkapalli of Tallapudi mandal, A-3 to A-5 are residents of Kamsalipalem village of Nidavolu mandal. 2
4. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, and younger brother of the husband of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the sister of P.W.1, while P.W.4 is the relative of the husband of P.W.1.
5. The deceased was given in marriage to A-1 on 22.04.2004, and the marriage was performed at the house of P.W.1. It is said that prior to marriage, they agreed to pay Rs.80,000/- towards dowry. About twenty days prior to marriage, A-1 to A-4, came to the house of P.W.1 along with the president of the village by name Mr. Sunkara Arjuna, and it was understood that Rs.30,000/- from out of Rs.80,000/-, shall paid on the date of marriage, while the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- would be paid after three years. They also agreed to give 8 sovereigns of gold to the deceased.
6. It is said that on the date of marriage, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to A-4. After marriage, the deceased was sent along with her husband, A-1, to the house of A-3, along with customary sare samans (articles). Both of them stayed in the house of A-3 for five days and, thereafter, A-1 and deceased, came to the house of P.W.1 and stayed there for two days, and, thereafter, A-1 took the deceased to Aushapur of Ghatkesari mandal, Rangareddy District.
7. It is said that A-1 was working in Maa T.V. as a driver. About fifteen days after taking the deceased to Aushapur, A-1 brought back the deceased to the house of P.W.1 and stayed for a week. During that period, the deceased informed P.W.1 that A-1, A-3 and A-4, were demanding her 3 for payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a car to A-1. P.W.1 expressed her inability about the same, as substantial amount was spent towards marriage. When the same was conveyed to A-1, he left the house along with the deceased. Twenty days prior to Ashadam, P.W.1 sent her son to bring the deceased to their house. The deceased was sent along with the son of P.W.1, and she stayed in the house of P.W.1 till the end of Ashadam. During that period, she is said to have informed P.W.1 and others, about the demand made by A-1 for bringing Rs.50,000/- while returning back to his house after Ashadam.
8. The material on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that after Ashadam, A-3 contacted the son of P.W.1 by name Sattibabu, on phone, and informed that A-1 will come over to their house in Kamsalipalem, and that P.W.1 and others should go over, to bring A-1 to their house. After A-1 was brought to the house of P.W.1, the deceased complained about demand for balance dowry of Rs.50,000/- by A-1. It is said that when she informed about the same, she was in her tears.
9. After hearing the view of P.W.1, in expressing her inability to pay the amount, A-1 went to the house of A-5, returned back on the same day evening and, thereafter, took the deceased to Kamsalipalem village. Both of them stayed in the said village for two days and, thereafter, went to Aushapur.
4
10. It is said that three days thereafter, A-3 to A-5, came to the house of P.W.1 at about 11.00 a.m., demanding for payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. When P.W.1 expressed her inability to comply with the demand, they pushed her aside and went away, as a result of which, P.W.1 fell down and lost her consciousness.
11. On the next day, the president of the village of P.W.1, came to the house of P.W.1 and informed that the condition of the deceased was not good as per the information received by him through one China Somaraju, P.W.4. Then P.W.1, her husband, son and other family members, started to go to Hyderabad and boarded the bus. When the bus reached Bhimadolu, the driver of the bus received information to the effect that the deceased was being brought by her husband and mother-in-law to their village. Accordingly, they got down the bus and returned to their house.
12. On the next day morning, they were informed by the president of their village that the deceased was brought to Kamsalipalem and that they were asked to come over to the said village. P.W.1 and her husband, and other relatives went to Kamsalipalem by engaging a van. They found the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of A-3, and noticed black mark around the next of the dead body and blood was oozing out from her both the ears and nostrils. Suspecting foul play, the husband of P.W.1, lodged a report with P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police on 07.08.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. Ex.P-1 is the said report. Basing on the same, a case in 5 Cr.No.108/2004 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-14 is the FIR.
13. P.W.16, proceeded to Kamsalipalem village and got prepared the observation report of the same under Ex.P15. He also prepared Ex.P-16, rough sketch. He sent a requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate for holding inquest over the dead body. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4, 9 and 10 and also A-1 and A-2. After inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
14. P.W.15 is the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P-5 is the inquest report. After conducting inquest, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. P.W.13 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Nidadavolu, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-8 postmortem report. After receiving FSL report, Ex.P-9, he issued final opinion under Ex.P-10, opining that the death of the deceased was due to respiratory arrest and due to blackening of skin over the face and neck. He further opined that throttling cannot be ruled out. It was also opined that the death was unnatural.
15. After receiving final opinion, the section of law was altered from 174 to 304-B IPC. Ex.P-17 is the altered FIR.
16. P.W.17, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation and he verified the investigation done so far, recorded statement of witnesses again, and arrested A-1, A-2 and A-5 on 23.11.2004. 6 He visited the house of A-1 at Aushapur and prepared an observation report under Ex.P-7, and a rough sketch as Ex.P-18. On 02.12.2004, he arrested A-3 and A-4 and sent them for remand. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as PRC. No.20 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.
17. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to them. As the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
18. On appearance, charges as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
19. In support of its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18.
20. Out of 17 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 5, 6, 8,11 and 12 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile.
21. After completing prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them, to which they pleaded not guilty. 7 However, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, except marking Exs.D-1 to D-3.
22. Appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence connecting the accused with the crime. It is pleaded that the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, is a complete improvement from what they have stated in their earlier statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He took me through the evidence in support of his plea.
24. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that A-3 to A-5 are residing elsewhere, and they have nothing to do with the family of A-1 and A-2, who are living in Aushapur of Ghatkesar mandal in Rangareddy District.
25. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that minor omissions in the earlier statements by witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4, do not go to the root of the matter, when the evidence of all the four witnesses is consistent with regard to major allegations made. He further submits that since the death took place within seven years of the marriage, the burden is on the accused to explain as to why the deceased died. In the absence of any explanation, and as the deceased died in the house of the accused at 8 Ghatkesar, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased died, more so, when the evidence of the doctor is to the effect that it is an unnatural death.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, he pleads that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, warrants no interference.
27. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC?
28. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence vide Crl.A.No.767 of 2011 was dismissed at the stage of admission, but however, that does not mean that the finding of the trial court with regard to conviction and sentence have become final, since the appeal filed by the State was for enhancement of sentence only.
29. It is to be noted that in order to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage, that there was harassment for, or in connection with dowry, soon before her death, the death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
9
30. Section 498-A is attracted qua the husband or his relative, if the victim is subjected to cruelty. "Cruelty" as defined under Section 498-A IPC deals with two parts viz., (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health; and (b) harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
31. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1892, enjoins a statutory presumption as to dowry death.
32. A reading of these provisions show that the burden is on the prosecution to unassailable substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by cogent and convincing evidence, so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1892.
33. The Apex Court in BAIJNATH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRASAD,1 considering the above provisions, held as under:
"35. This court while often dwelling on the scope and purport of Section 304B of the Code and Section 113B of the Act have propounded that the presumption is contingent on the fact that the prosecution first spell out the ingredients of the offence of Section 304B as in Shindo Alias Sawinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab, (2011)11 SCC 517 and echoed in Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2013)16 SCC 640. In the latter pronouncement, this Court propounded that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the code is that the accused must have subject the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the Court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Act. It referred to with approval, the earlier decision 1 2016 Law Suit (SC) 1089 10 of this court in K.Prema S.Rao Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003)1 SCC 217 to the effect that to attract the provision of Section 304B of the Code, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand for dowry".
34. Keeping this principle in the background, I shall now deal with the evidence on record, to find out as to whether the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving the ingredients constituting the offences referred to earlier.
35. It is no doubt true that the deceased died within seven years of the marriage; it was an unnatural death; and she died in the house of the accused at Aushapur of Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District.
36. In order to prove that it is a case of unnatural death, the evidence of doctor establishes the same.
37. P.W.13 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on 08.08.2004 from 8.00 a.m. onwards. He noticed following external injuries:
1. Small abrasion 6 x 4cms x 2cms on right side middle 1/3rd of the neck, ante-mortem in nature. It could have been caused by a blunt object;
2. Blackening of the skin over face, neck up to the 2nd rib veins are thrombosed.
3. Puffiness of face, swelling of the neck up to color bone.
38. A reading of the evidence of the doctor P.W.13, shows that the death was due to respiratory arrest and due to blackening of skin over the face and neck. However, throttling was ruled out. His evidence also shows that the opinion given by him was only a guess work and not based on scientific reasoning with regard to respiratory arrest. Though they say that 11 the death was unnatural, the postmortem doctor, or the team of doctors, who had done the postmortem, were not clear as to whether it is a case of suicide due to hanging or otherwise. Probably, for that reason only, the prosecution must have framed a charge only for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
39. The above conclusion arrived by me is based on the admissions of P.W.13 in the cross-examination, which are as under :-
"It is true that Professor Modi, is an authority on Medical Jurisprudence. I do not know whether Professor Tylor and Professor Cox are also authorities on Medical Jurisprudence.
...
It is not true to suggest that abrasion is not an injury itself, but it is a secondary to injury. I did not find moisture on surface of injury No.1. There was dried up blood on injury No.1, but it was not mentioned in Ex.P-8. I did not find any inflammation on tissues. We did not use microscope at the time of P.M. examination. I did not find formation of scab in respect of injury No.1. I found bleeding in the underlying tissues. It is true that in cases of asphyxial deaths generally the symptoms noted in injury No.2 will be present. So also injury No.3. It is not true to suggest that in case of death by hanging, there will be ligature marks.
...
I do not know if blood clots are common in all cases of hanging, strangulation and throttling. In case of death by hanging, strangulation or throttling, froth may come out from mouth or nostrils. It may not be so in all cases. It is true that there will be tendency for ligature moving upwards. Such movement may leave some impression. It is true that no part of the neck of the deceased was sent to F.S.L. for analysis."
40. The answers elicited from the doctor, in my opinion, does not conclusively establish the cause of death as to whether it is a case of hanging, strangulation or throttling. Probably, as noted above, for that reason, the trial court framed a charge for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
12
41. It is now to be seen as to whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, establish the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
42. Though it is established that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and that it is an unnatural death, the question is whether there was harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
43. As stated by me earlier, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the crucial witnesses, relied on by the prosecution to establish the offence.
44. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, and other family members, they agreed to give Rs.80,000/- towards dowry, and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was given at the time of marriage, and balance to be paid after three years. It is said that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to A-4 at the time of marriage. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution was with regard to demand made by the accused for the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-.
45. Admittedly, A-3 to A-5 were living in Kamsalipuram village, while A-1 and A-2 and the deceased were residing in Aushapur village of Ghatkesar mandal in Rangareddy District, after the marriage. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the instances of harassment are as under:
1. About 15 days after taking his wife went to Aushapur, A-1 brought her back to our house and stayed in our house for one week. During that period my daughter informed me that her husband, her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law i.e., A-3 and A-4 were demanding her for payment of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a car by A-1, to which P.W.1 is stated to have expressed her inability.13
2. When the deceased was in the house of P.W.1, during Ashadam, she informed them about A-1 asking to bring balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- after Ashadam.
3. It is further stated that after A-1 joined the deceased in the house of P.W.1 after Ashadam, he enquired with the deceased whether the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- was ready;
and that the deceased informed the P.W.1 about the same in tears.
4. that subsequently, after three days A-3 to A-5 came to the house of P.W.1, and demanded balance dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that when P.W.1 expressed inability, they pushed her aside and left the house.
In the cross-examination P.W.1 admits as under:
"It is true that that I did not state before police that 20 days prior to the date of marriage of the deceased A-1 to A-4 came to our house along with the president of our village Sunkara Arjuna. I do not remember whether I did not state before police that my daughter informed me with tears in her eyes that the accused 1 to 4 were demanding her to bring the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. I do not state before police that I have asked my daughter to stay back in our house till the balance dowry amount was paid to her. I did not state before police that when my son Venkateswararao brought my daughter 20 days prior to Ashadamasam my daughter informed me that she was told by her husband and mother-in-law that she should come back with the balance dowry amount. I did not state before police that after A-1 came to our house after Asadamasam my daughter informed me that on the previous night she was pressurized by her husband for the balance dowry amount. . . . I do not state before police that I offered cool drinks and A-3 to A-5 did not accept my offer. . . . I did not state before police that A-3 to A-
5 pushed me and then I fell down on a pial and sustained bleeding injury on my right hand and lost consciousness." The above admissions made by P.W.1 in her cross-examination, are corroborated by the evidence of P.W.17, the investigating officer, who in his cross-examination deposed as under:
"It is true that when I examined L.W.1 NagireddyChandrarao on 23.11.2004, he stated that his daughter/deceased was unwilling to go to Aushapur, but A-1 took her to Kamsalipuram and stayed there for two days and then took to Aushapur. P.W.1 has not stated before that her daughter told her with tears that the accused 1 to 4 were demanding to bring balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 has stated before me as in Ex.D-
1.
46. From the evidence of P.W.1, which is referred to above, it is evident that the acts of alleged harassment spoken to before the court, were never stated by her before the investigating officer. Major portions of which 14 are admitted by her in the cross-examination, while some are elicited from the evidence of the investigating officer.
47. Therefore, it is clear that the only version, which finds place is with regard to demand made by A-3 and A-4 for payment of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of car for A-1, which I shall deal with, little later.
48. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1, who also toes in line with that of P.W.1 with regard to alleged harassment. He goes to the extent of stating that in the month of August, 2004, A-3 to A-5 came to the house of his brother at about 11.00 a.m., and that he went to the house of his brother on hearing cries, and by the time he went there, there was a scuffle between his brother and his wife, and A-3 to A-5; he separated them. His evidence also goes to show that A-3 to A-5 have challenged saying "Meeku Rosham Ledu. 24 gantalalo dabbulu ivvakapothe edo okati avuthundi"; that their demand for money was for purchasing a car for A-1.
49. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 admits that:
"I did not state before police that there was a scuffle between my brother and his wife one side and A-3 and A-5 on the other and that I separated them. I did not state before police that A-3 to A-5 have uttered as "Meeku Rosham ledu. 24 gantalalo dabbulu ivvakapothe edo okati avutundi". I did not state before police that the demand made by A-3 to A-5 for money was to purchase car for A-1."
The above evidence of P.W.2 in his cross-examination is further corroborated by P.W.17, the investigating officer, who in his cross- examination stated as under:
15
"P.W.2 did not state before me that he observed scratches over neck of the deceased. P.W.2 has stated before me as in Ex.D-2."
50. From the evidence of P.W.2 it is also clear that his version in- chief with regard to A-3 to A-5 coming to the house of P.W.1 and uttering the words and making demand for money for purchase of car for A-1, does not find place in the statement recorded by the police during investigation. In fact, it appears that he was only asked to speak about the same in his evidence in chief, as such, the same does not find place in his earlier statement.
51. In fact, the evidence of P.W.2 is an exaggeration from what P.W.1 has stated, as he goes to the extent of stating that there was a scuffle between his brother and his wife and A-3 to A-5, and the challenge thrown by A-3 to A-5, which was not found in the evidence of P.W.1, though she speaks about the demand of money by A-3 to A-5 for purchase of a car for A-1, which is again not found in the statement of P.W.2 recorded by police during investigation.
52. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that as the demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of car for A-1, is consistent, the same would be sufficient to infer that soon before her death, she was subjected to harassment in connection with demand for dowry. In the light of the above omissions, the inference as sought for by the learned Public Prosecutor, cannot be drawn.
16
53. P.W.3 is the sister of P.W.1. She was mainly examined to speak that during Ashadam, she met the deceased, who is alleged to have told her that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding for balance dowry and harassing her. She deposed that in Sravanamasam, A-1 took the deceased to Hyderabad and later they received information about the death.
54. It was suggested to her that she did not mention about the same in her earlier statement, but the same was denied by her. However, the evidence of investigating officer P.W.16, who examined her during investigation, belies her version. The relevant portion in the deposition of P.W.16, in the cross-examination is as under:
"P.W.3 did not state before me that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was sent along with sweet kavadi through her brother-in-law Chandra Rao. It is true that P.W.3 did not state before me that when she went to the house of P.W.1, the deceased told her that her husband and mother-in-law were harassing her for the balance dowry amount."
Therefore, from the above it is clear that the version of P.W.3 in her chief examination that when deceased came to the house of P.W.1 for Ashadam, she went to see her, and that she informed her that her husband and mother-in-law were demanding for the balance dowry amount and harassing her, cannot be accepted, as it is an improvement from the earlier version.
55. Similarly P.W.4 is the only other witness, examined by the prosecution to prove the acts of harassment by the accused. He is no other than the cousin of the husband of P.W.1. His evidence goes to show that A- 1 is also related to them. He speaks about marriage on 22.04.2004, and 17 also the demand of Rs.1,20,000/- made by the accused towards dowry, about twenty days prior to the fixation of the marriage. However, the same was reduced to Rs.80,000/- and out of the said amount, Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of marriage, and Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid after three years.
56. His evidence is to the effect that ten or twelve days prior to the marriage of the deceased with A-1, mithaikavidi was sent to Kamsalipalem with the husband of P.W.1 and the amount of Rs.30,000/- was sent through him. But, however, this fact does not find place in his earlier statement recorded by P.Ws.16 and 17.
57. The relevant portion of the evidence in the cross-examination of P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.4, is as under:
"It is true that P.W.4 did not state before me that 10 or 12 days prior to the date of marriage, Rs.30,000/- was sent along with sweet-kavidi."
58. P.W.17, the other investigating officer, who also recorded the statement of P.W.4, stated in the cross-examination as under:
"P.W.4 did not state before me that 10 or 12 days before the marriage of deceased, a sum of Rs.30,000/- with sweet kavidi was sent through his cousin Chkandrarao to Kamsalipalem."
59. In so far as demand made by A-2 to A-5 about 20 days prior to marriage on 22.04.2004, the same also does not find place in their earlier statements. It is useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.4, in this regard, as under:
18
"I did not state before police about my presence when there were talks regarding dowry and I was not asked by police about it.
...
I did not accompany Chandrarao to Kamsalipalem when he took metaikavadi. I did not witness the handing over of Rs.30,000/- by Chandrarao to bride groom party. I did not state before police that on 5-8-04 my cousin Chandrarao came and informed me that A-3 to A-5 came to his house and were demanding the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- and that I went to his house along with him and saw P.W.1 laying on a pial. I did not state before police that A-3 to A-5 threatened to see the fate of Padma."
Therefore, it is evident that even the evidence of P.W.4 does not corroborate with the evidence of other witnesses. On the other hand, it is elicited that his evidence in-chief, is an improvement from what he has stated before the police.
60. The evidence of P.W.7, who was working in a private company at Ghatkesar and the owner of the house bearing D.No.1-77 of Aushapur village, goes to show that he let out a portion of house to A-1 and A-2 on rent. Though he was cross-examined to the acts of harassment, his evidence is silent on any of the alleged acts, except stating the he let out the house to A-1 and that he came to know that wife of A-1 died.
61. Similarly, the prosecution examined P.W.8, who is the resident of Aushapur village, to speak about the alleged acts of harassment in the house of the accused. But he did not support the version of the prosecution and he was declared hostile.
62. From the observations made basing on the evidence adduced, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC; namely that there was a 19 demand for additional dowry and that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment for or in connection with the said dowry. In fact, the evidence of all the witnesses in-chief only refers to demand for balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-. There is no reference to any kind of harassment, except for balance dowry amount, which in fact, as observed by me earlier, do not find place in any of their earlier statements made before the police.
63. In the absence of any other evidence, I feel that the evidence adduced by the prosecution do not make out a case for conviction of the accused either for the offence under Section 498-A or under Section 304-B IPC, and thus the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt, and the issued framed in this regard, is answered in the negative.
64. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside and the bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
65. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
---------------------------------------------------
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J DATE: 22--01--2020 skmr (Avs)