Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sunkara Suri Babu vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALD40, 1996(1)ALD(CRI)366, 1996(1)ALT(CRI)165, 1998CRILJ1480, II(1996)DMC590
Author: T.N.C. Rangarajan
Bench: T.N.C. Rangarajan
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of A1, A3 and A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and convicting A1 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The deceased was the wife of A1 having been married on 9-3-1984. A2 is her father-in-law, A3 the mother-in-law and A4 the sister-in-law of the deceased. A2 died during the trial and the case against him was abated. A5 was her another sister-in-law who was only aged 14 years and the learned Sessions Judge has therefore quashed committal in respect of A5 and directed that she be tried by the Juvenile Court. The case of prosecution is that the deceased had committed suicide on 25-4-1989 by burning herself and since this happened within seven years of her marriage and the accused had demanded dowry from her prior to that date and had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with that demand, they were guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The complaint was actually given on 29-4-1989 by PW-1 who is the elder brother of the deceased. He stated in the complaint that 5 sovereigns of gold had been given as Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of marriage, that she was looked after well for four years and she had given birth to two daughters and thereafter she was sent back to her parents house twice for bringing Rs. 15,000/- to develop the welding shop of the accused and she had been sent back with mediators and later she came to Hyderabad to his house and showed them the injuries on her body and she was again taken back to her husband's place. Subsequently on 25-4-1989 he received a message that she died and when he went to their house on 26-4-1989 she was not there and therefore he had a suspicion that she might have been murdered. PW-4 another brother gave a private complaint on 7-5-1989 practically repeating the same facts stated above and stating that the accused had killed the deceased and tried to burn her in the bathroom and the neighbours had seen the commission of the offence. It is also stated in the private complaint that he was apprehensive that the complaint given to the police may be filed under Section 306 IPC whereas the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC had been committed and the accused should be punished for the same. In the evidence during trial, PW-1 the brother, PW-2 the father of the deceased spoke about the demand for Rs. 15,000/- and the complaint of the deceased that she was being beaten. PWs 3 and 4 are the two other brothers of the deceased who also spoke about the demand for Rs. 15,000/-. PW-5 is a neighbour of the accused who stated that there was some differences between A-4 the sister-in-law and the deceased on 25-4-1989 and she and her mother went to their house and when they were sitting in the hall they noticed some smoke coming from the bathroom and raised alarm when A2 also came and broke open the door of the bathroom which was locked from inside and found that the deceased died of burn injuries. She stated that PW-3 who had brought the deceased to the house of the accused had met them and her husband and had requested her to look after the deceased. She also stated that A1 had told them that she and the deceased were quarrelling about the children. PW-6 is the husband of PW-5 and he also spoke about the quarrels between A4 and the deceased and about the discovery of the body of the deceased in the bathroom. PW-8 is the mediator who had been sent along with the deceased on an earlier occasion by the father of the deceased who testified of his telling the accused that PW-2 wanted time for payment of Rs. 15,000/-. PW-9 is another neighbour of the accused who stated that he saw A1 beating the deceased on 25-4-1989 when A3 to A5 were remarking that if the deceased was no more they would get Rs. 50,000/- as dowry on A1 getting married again and subsequently at 2 p.m., he saw the smoke and entered the house along with the others and found the deceased having died of burn injuries in the bathroom. PW-10 is the witness for the observation report. PW-11 is the constable and PW-12 is the Sub-Inspector. PW-13 is the Dy. S.P., vigilance, who investigated the matter. The defence examined one witness being the brother-in-law of the first accused. He stated that the deceased had not been mentally well and had undergone some treatment with the doctor Karri Ramireddy of Rajahmundry, and produced two letters and a prescription to prove the same. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion, on the basis of this evidence, that admittedly there was suicide in respect of which the father and brothers of the deceased grew suspicious as the body was cremated immediately and since the suicide was within seven years of the marriage, A1, A3 and A4 were guilty of the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that as far as the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. was concerned, there was no evidence of demand for dowry inasmuch as dowry has been understood as the amount demanded by an agreement for the marriage and any amount demanded thereafter would not fall within that definition. With reference to the offence under Section 498-A, he submitted that all the witnesses were related to the deceased and were interested witnesses and there was no contemporaneous evidence of any beating of the deceased by the accused and no particular witness had been named for any particular occurrence. He pointed out that the parents and the brothers of the deceased had never taken any interest in her after her marriage and they have not even provided for medical treatment for any injuries she might have had because of the alleged beating. He further pointed out that even the neighbour PW-9 who is supposed to have seen the beating, has not mentioned to anyone or the police at any time. He argued that the allegation that the deceased was being beaten was not proved and on the other hand there was evidence to show that the deceased was actually beating her children which led to some altercation in the family. With reference to the demand for Rs. 15,000/-, the counsel submitted that there was no occasion for such a demand when the accused knew that the family of the deceased was not in a position to meet the demand and since this is stated only by the relations who had not made this allegation earlier, the complaint has been made only because the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. The counsel drew my attention to the evidence of DW-1 and the letters and the prescription produced by him to submit that the deceased was suffering from some mental illness for which she was having treatment and her sudden decision to commit suicide may be due to that and not due any conduct on the part of the accused.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that almost all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was being beaten and that there was demand for Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the ingredient necessary for the offence under Section 498-A. It is also stated that any delay in making the complaint was due to the fact that the complainant was trying to obtain some report from the neighbours before making a valid complaint and that need not be taken as an adverse factor.
5. On going through the evidence on record, the picture I get is that the parents and brothers of the deceased have almost forgotten the deceased after getting her married off. They say both in the complaint and in the oral evidence that she was happy for four years and she had two children also. PW-1 is not able to recall even the names of the two daughters of the deceased and all the brothers and the father admit that they were not corresponding with the deceased and they have not enquired about her welfare. On the otherhand, the letters produced by the defence witnesses indicate that the family of the accused were concerned about the welfare of the deceased and that they were getting her treated in the hospital for nervous and mental diseases at Rajamundry. Keeping this in background, I have to consider whether there was any demand for dowry accompanied by haresment which led to the deceased commit suicide. The acceptation of dowry excludes any demand made subsequent to the amount agreed at the time of marriage, as held in Avvala Rambabu v. State of Andh. Pra., 1993 (1) ALT (Crl) 73 (DB). Consequently, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
6. With reference to the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C., there must be a wilful conduct of such a nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide or harassment with a view to coercing her to meet an unlawful demand for any property. The complaint and the evidence were designed to prove both these ingredients. However, there were several contradictions in the evidence which give an impression that the mention was made only to put the accused in the dock. For one thing, almost all the witnesses are related to each other and the deceased including the neighbours and the mediators. With regard to the allegations that the deceased herself came to Hyderabad to complaint about her being injured by beating, the brother admits that he did not take her for medical treatment and therefore, there is no corroboration. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that there a discrepancy in the dates inasmuch as in the private complaint the event is supposed to have occurred in January whereas in the oral evidence it was stated to have occurred in February and further at a time which coincides with that when the family of the accused had gone away to another place. With regard to the demand for Rs. 15,000/- there is no specific evidence of any need for that amount as the welding shop of the accused was not shown to be requiring any additional machinery or improvement nor was the family of the deceased shown to be capable of meeting that demand. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, while the complaint says that at the time of the marriage only five sovereigns of gold were given, in the oral evidence it is stated that dowry of Rs. 25,000/- with two additional amounts of Rupees 5,000/- and five sovereigns of gold were given, and the significance of this contradiction is that it does not go along with the financial status of the family of the deceased who had only one fair price shop. It was also mentioned in the complaint that A1 was unhappy that he did not have a son born to him while, admittedly, his wife the deceased had already undergone family planning operation, which contradicts any such idea.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the body had been cremated immediately even though the father had seen the body and had requested to wait for the brothers to arrive and by the time the brothers came the body had been already cremated. He argued that any evidence of injury on the body would have disappeared and apart from being liable for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C., there can also be an inference that there was harassment leading to suicide. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there was no attempt to conceal any offender because the dead body was seen by the father of the deceased before it was cremated and hence no adverse inference should be drawn from this fact. Looking into the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was no specific evidence of wilful conduct which amounted to cruelty or harassment with reference to any specific demand for money prior to the suicide of the deceased. Perhaps there was some quarrels as is usual in any joint family when a daughter comes in for confinement and the daughter-in-law with two small children of her own is required to attend to her also. The evidence points only to such domestic friction. If in this situation the deceased rushed to commit suicide, in the absence of any information about the actual quarrel or the situation which is prior to the occurrence, it is difficult to draw any inference that it was the harassment which drove her to commit suicide. Perhaps she had an unstable personality with a low threshold of tolerance for even domestic friction as is displayed by her beating of children which actually made her end her life. The possibility of such an occurrence creates a doubt, the benefit of which has to be given to the accused. I, therefore, hold that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A also cannot be sustained.
8. The cremation of the body without informing the police attracts the provisions of Section 201, I.P.C. The learned counsel for the accused argued that if no offence is committed there could be no destruction of the evidence and in any case there was no attempt to screen any offender from punishment. For considering the application of Sections 201 and 202, we cannot take as the basis the subsequent result of the trial as to whether the offence is proved or not. It is enough and if the evidence shows that the evidence is caused to disappear and there is an intentional omission to give information on the basis of the information available at that point of time, indicating that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the offence had been committed. With reference to Section 202, I.P.C., the Supreme Court pointed out in Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) Cr LJ 3123 (SC), that in the case of every suicide there is an abatement inherent and whether ultimately it is proved or not is a different aspect and therefore, failure to give information to the police would be punishable under Section 202, I.P.C. That was a case which was decided by the time when Sections 498-A and 304-B were not on the statute book. These two sections create deemed offences on the proof of cruelty and harassment. The body of the deceased may give certain clues as to cruelty and harassment and consequently, the destruction of the body without information to the police would attract the provisions of Sections 201 and 202, I.P.C. Notwithstanding that the accused is acquitted of the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, A-1 has to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. inasmuch as the body of the deceased who had committed suicide was cremated without informing the police. The punishment for this offence on the facts of this case is for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for this offence. The learned counsel for the accused pleaded for reducing the sentence on the ground that the father of A-1 has died and he is the sole bread earning member of the family and he also has two small children to be looked after. Since I have already acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the senence is reduced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In the result, the A-1 alone is convicted for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to the period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and all the accused are acquitted of the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. The appeal is partly allowed.
9. So far as A-5 is concerned, she was a minor aged 14 years at the time of arrest and consequently, the learned Sessions Judge has separated her case and directed that she must be tried in the Juvenile Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the accused that the trial was concluded, but further proceedings were stayed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 872/93. In view of my finding that there is no evidence of any offence being committed under Sections 304-B and 498-A by the other members of the family of the husband of the deceased as well as the husband himself, the prosecution of A-5 under the Juvenile Justice Act will be infructuous. In the interests of justice, I exercise the suo motu revision powers under Section 397, Cr.P.C., read with Section 401, Cr.P.C., and I deem it fit to direct that A-5 be discharged under Section 227, Cr.P.C.
10. Appeal partly allowed.