Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ... vs Tota Basava Punnaiah And Ors. on 19 June, 1989
Equivalent citations: I(1990)DMC466
Author: K. Jayachandra Reddy
Bench: K. Jayachandra Reddy
JUDGMENT Patnaik, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondents, who were accused in Sessions Case No. 52/1988 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. They were prosecuted for committing the murder of Tata Siva Kumari, wife of the 1st accused and for other offences. The 2nd accused is the father and the third accused is the mother of the 1st accused.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Tata Sivakumari, aged about 20 years, was married to the 1st accused about three years prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 26-6-1987. At the time of the marriage the father of the deceased agreed to pay Rs. 6000/- towards dowry to the 1st accused and Rs. 500/- as gift to the sister of A-1 and also agreed to give domestic articles including a cot, but he paid only Rs. 2,000/- out of the dowry at the time of marriage and Rs. 500/- to the sister of A-1, promising to pay the balance of dowry amount within one year after the marriage. As the father of the deceased could not pay the balance of dowry of Rs. 4,000/- within the stipulated period of one year, all the accused started harassing and beating the accused on that account. The deceased went to her parents and represented to them about the ill treatment by the accused for the balance of the dowry amount and thereafter the father of the deceased paid Rs. 4,000/-, being the balance of the dowry amount, and Rs. 500/- as interest for the said amount. Later, when A-1 demanded a wrist watch and new clothes the father of the deceased gave him Rs. 1,000/- towards the same. About three days prior to 26-6-1987 the father of the deceased sent a tape-cot to the house of the accused, but the accused was dissatisfied on the ground that it is not a double-cot and started ill treating the deceased. On the evening of 24-6-1987 A-1 went to the house of one Tata Raghavaiah and called the mother of the deceased and told her that she should send a double cot or its value and objected for sending a tape cot to him. On the morning of 25-6-1987 the accused ill treated and harassed the deceased as her parents could not give double cot and sent her away to her parents house. The mother of the deceased by name Ede Bapamma sent the deceased back to the house of the accused telling that the matter will be settled by her father soon. On the night of 25-6-1989 all the accused strangulated the deceased by neck and killed her and kept the deadbody on the cot in their house keeping a Lungi tied to a bamboo beam to make it appear that the deceased committed suicide with a view to suppress the evidence of murder and save them from punishment from the offence of murder. On receiving the information the parents of the deceased and others visited the house of the accused on the morning of 26-6-1987 and found the deceased lying dead on a cot. Thereafter the brother of the deceased gave a report to the police and after investigation a charge sheet was filed against all the accused.
3. Four charges were framed against the accused. The first charge is under section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder of Tata Siva Kumari. The second charge is framed alternatively under section 304-B, I.P.C. for causing the death of Tata Sivakumari by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for not getting desired dowry and as she was unable to bring double cot. The third charge is under section 201, I.P.C. for screening the offence of murder. The fourth charge is under section 498-A I.P.C. for subjecting the deceased Siva Kumari to ill treatment and harassing her. The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence held that the deceased might have committed suicide due to strained domestic quarrels in a joint family due to her own extreme sensitiveness sentimentism and that none of the accused can be blamed for that. He found that none of the charges is established by the prosecution and therefore acquitted all the accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the said acquittal.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is sufficient evidence to convict all the accused under sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. The deceased who is a young woman aged about 20 years was married to the 1st accused about three years prior to her death. P.W. 2, who is the father of the deceased deposed that he agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/- as dowry to A-1 and Rs. 500/- towards his sister's gift besides giving him a cot and other utencils. He paid Rs. 2,000/- out of the dowry to A-1 at the time of the marriage and Rs. 500/- as sister's gift. The payment of the balance of dowry of Rs. 4,000/- and the cot and utencils are postponed to be given after about a year. The deceased was sent to A-1's house immediately after the marriage and she lived happily for about one year and four months. After that the deceased came to his house and told them that she was sent out by her husband demanding her to get the balance of dowry or Rs. 4,000/- together with interest, that he was abusing her and quarrelled with her. Ten days thereafter he sold black-gram and gave Rs. 4,000/- along with interest to A-1 in the presence of one Nancharaiah and left the deceased with him. About for months thereafter his daughter again came to his house and told them that she was sent out to get Rs. 500/- towards watch and Rs. 500/- towards festival clothes and she was beaten by A-1 to get the same. Thereafter he paid Rs. 1000/- to A-1 and left her at the house of the accused. Three days prior to the death of the deceased he took a tape cot to the house of A-1 and gave it there. At that time A-1 was not in the house. On the same evening when he returned from his field his wife told him that A-1 came to the house of Tata Raghavulu and sent for her and demanded double cot or its value and that the cot sent to him was not required by him and also told him that A-1 was quarrelling for double cot and Raghavulu advised A-1 to be satisfied with what was given to him. On the next day also he was informed by his wife that A-1 came to their house and quarrelled with her for double cot or its value. On the early hours of the next day i.e. about 4.30 a.m. on Friday Ede Venkateswarlu came to their house and told them that his daughter died in the house of A-1. They all went to the house of the accused and found the deceased was lying dead. A-1 to A-3 were present by then and when they asked A-1 to A-3 about the death of the deceased they did not give any reply. They found the throat and neck of the deceased was swollen. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a report. P.W. 3, who is the mother of the deceased also deposed about the demand and payment of dowry. She stated that about three days prior to the death of the deceased P.W. 2 delivered tape cot at the house of A-1. On the same day in the evening she was sent for by A-1 to Tata Raghavulu's house. At that time P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not in the house. She went to the house of Raghavulu. A-1 in a loud voice uttered that it is not the cot that was required by him and that he wants a double cot or its value. She pleaded their inability to give double cot as they are poor and Tata Raghavulu passified the situation. She told about it to P.Ws. 1 and 2 after they returned. On the next day at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased went to her house and told them that she was sent after beating by A-1 and after abusing by A2 and A-3 for getting double cot or its value and that the cot given to them was not required. She told her daughter that she had already explained their inability to meet the demand of A-1 and that she would inform the same after P.W. 2 returns home and so saying she sent away the deceased to the house of A-1. On the same evening A-1 came to the house and loudly quarrelled with them demanding money or the double cot. They pleaded their inability to meet the demand of A-1. He left the place saying that they can take back the cot given to him and he would see what would happen. On the early hours of the next day i.e., Friday Ede Venkateswarlu came to the house and told them that the deceased died and then all the members of the family went to the house of A-1 and saw the deceased lying dead on a cot. P.W. 1, who is the brother of the deceased had also spoken to the same facts and stated that he gave the report Ex. P1 to the S.I. of Police, Bhattiprolu. P.W. 5. S. Nancharaiah, who is a neighbour of A-2 also deposed about the demand and payment of dowry. He further stated that on the night of the occurrence before going to bed A-1 was abusing and scolding the deceased as he was given only tape cot instead of a double cot or its value. A-2 and A-3 were also abusing the deceased that she brought only a small amount of dowry and sent a useless cot instead of a double cot or its value. The deceased was telling that she would bring them. On the next morning he came to know about the death of the deceased.
5. P.W. 9, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased along with another Doctor deposed about the injury found on the deadbody. She opined that the deceased appeared to have died on account of asphyxia due to hanging. Ex. P-6 is the post mortem certificate. It shows that there is one external injury ie a ligature mark of size of 2" breadth is present above the thyroid cartilage and below the chin in front and breadth of 1" size is present on both sides of the neck. The injury is antimortem. The death is due to asphyxia due to hanging.
6. So, the medical evidence shows that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to hanging. Section 304-B, I.P.C. provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act says that when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. The deceased Sivakumari died about three years after her marriage. The deceased died due to asphyxia on account of hanging, which shows that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances. The evidence of her parents and P.W. 5 shows that even though the parents have complied with the demand of dowry and other demands like sister's gift, money for new clothes and wrist watch for A-1, still the accused were insisting on the deceased getting a double cot and when the father of the deceased sent a tape cot A-1 was not satisfied with it and quarreled with the mother of the deceased and also harassed the deceased for not getting double cot. The learned Public Prosecutor has therefore contended that all the ingredients of S. 304-B are established and therefore the accused are liable for punishment under that provision. The demand of a double cot also comes within the scope of dowry because according to the evidence of the father, P.W. 2, he agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/- to A-1 besides Rs. 500/- towards his sister's gift, besides giving him cot and other utencils.
7. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the medical evidence only shows that the deceased Siva Kumari died due to asphyxia on account of hanging and it is possible that she might have committed suicide, as it cannot be said definitely that it is a case of homicide. He has referred to the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in para 10 of his judgment that there is no evidence to show that any of the accused killed the deceased and the deceased might have committed suicide. The learned counsel for the accused contended that S. 304-B, I.P.C. does not apply where a person commits suicide. He has argued that there is another provision of S. 306, I.P.C. which deals with the offence of abetment of suicide. We are unable to agree with this contention. Section 304-B is a special provision which is inserted by the amendment in 1986 to deal with dowry deaths. It applies where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, if the other conditions are satisfied. Since the deceased died on account of the hanging, the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. We are, therefore, of the view that even if she had committed suicide by hanging, still the death comes within the scope of S. 304-B, I.P.C., if it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.
8. The evidence referred to above would show that though the father of the deceased complied with all the demands regarding dowry. A-1 was demanding a double cot and when the father of the deceased sent a tape cot, A-1 quarrelled with the mother of the deceased i.e., P.W. 3 saying that he wants a double cot and not a tape cot. P.W. 3 had also stated that the deceased was beaten by A-1 and abused by A-2 and A-3 and sent to their house to get a double cot or its value. P.W. 5, the neighbour also speaks about it. Though he says that A-2 and A-3 were also abusing the deceased for having brought a small amount of dowry and useless cot, there is no satisfactory evidence to show that A-2 and A-3 were harassing the deceased or subjecting her to cruelty. But there is overwhelming evidence which shows that A-1 was harassing the deceased and beating her and he also quarreled with P.W. 3 for sending tape cot instead of double cot. Therefore it is clearly established that A1 committed the offence under section 304-B, I.P.C. He is also guilty under section 498-A. I.P.C. for having subjected his wife i.e. the deceased to cruelty. A-2 and A-3 are found not guilty either under section 304-B or 498-A, I.P.C. as the evidence against them regarding cruelty or harassment is not satisfactory.
9. As far as the charge of murder under section 302, I.P.C. is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the death of Siva Kumari is homicidal and therefore none of the accused can be convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. They cannot be convicted under section 201, I.P.C. for screening themselves from the offence of murder.
10. In the result, A-1 is convicted under section 304-B, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He is also convicted under section 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appeal is accordingly allowed against A-1 only and dismissed against A-2 and A-3.
11. Order accordingly.