THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1674 of 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.412 of 2002 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadwal on 22.01.2003. The respondents herein were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC alleging that the accused No.1 was married to the deceased Govindamma about 3 years back. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave 1 ½ tulas of gold and silver weighing about 40 tulas to the accused No.1 as dowry. After 3 months of marriage, accused No.1, her husband, accused No.2, mother-in-law, accused No.3, brother-in-law of the deceased started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and also threatened to perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 and also abused her as barren lady. Frustrated by the attitude of the accused, on 18.12.2001 at about 6.00 P.M., she consumed insecticide poison to commit suicide. While she was being brought to hospital by her husband and others, she lost her breath. Thereafter, on the complaint of her father, P.W.1, a case in Crime No.71 of 2001 was registered against the accused and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The Mandal Revenue Officer, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused not guilty for the said charges and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the father and mother of the deceased, clearly establishes the harassment caused to the deceased by the accused by demanding her to get Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry and threatening her that they will perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 and also ill- treated her for not begetting children. As such the deceased frustrated by the said harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide on 18.12.2001, as such the prosecution could establish the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The counsel appearing for the respondents/accused has pleaded that the death of the deceased was occurred after 3 years of her marriage and the allegation against the accused is that they demanded Rs.10,000/- as additional dowry after 3 months of her marriage, but the same was not complained to anybody by P.Ws.1 and 2 at any point of time. Therefore, the said version cannot be believed and he supported the judgment of the trial Court. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Govindamma was given in marriage to accused No.1 about 3 years back and at the time of her marriage, the parents of the deceased gave 1 ½ tulas of gold and silver weighing about 40 tulas as dowry. After 3 months of her marriage, accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and threatened to perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 and also abused her for not begotten any children, as such the deceased frustrated by the said attitude of the accused and committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison on 18.12.2001. To establish the said allegations, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 8. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 are the villagers and related to the deceased. P.W.6 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 is the investigating officer. In order to establish the offence under Section 498-A IPC the prosecution has to establish cruelty on the part of the accused. As per explanation under Section 498-A IPC, the cruelty means (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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman 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. Since it is alleged that the accused demanded for payment of additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and also threatened to perform 2nd marriage to her husband, the said allegations fall within the fold of explanation (b). Under the explanation (b) the cruelty means harassment of the woman 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. In the present case, P.W.1, father of the deceased, has stated that after the marriage his daughter was treated well by the accused for 3 months, thereafter accused No.1 asked her daughter to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-. Every time, his daughter used to inform them about the demand of money and they went and convinced the accused. In spite of that all the accused persons used to demand money from his daughter. His daughter has not begotten any children, because of that also the accused used to say that they will perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 with another woman. They used to ill-treat his daughter. Because of the said ill-treatment, his daughter committed suicide. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 about the accused wanted to perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 as his daughter has not begotten any children. He also not stated the said fact before the Mandal Revenue Officer at the time of recording his statement. According to him, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to his house to take his daughter to their house as there is cradle ceremony of the son of accused No.2. He also attended the said cradle ceremony and they performed the cradle ceremony happily. Immediately on the next day of the said function, he went to his village and his daughter was in the house of the accused. After 15 or 20 days of the said cradle ceremony, his daughter committed suicide and during that period he never went to the house of accused nor his daughter came to his house. According to him, prior to her death, accused demanded Rs.10,000/- and also panchayat was held. But whereas P.W.2, mother of the deceased has stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.10,000/- from her daughter as they required money urgently and ill-treated her. Herself, B.Nagappa and P.W.1 informed the accused that they have no money at present and they will pay the same after 8 days, because of that her daughter committed suicide. Therefore, it is the specific case of P.W.2 even though they promised to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- within 8 days, her daughter committed suicide. Moreover, she admitted in the cross-examination that the marriage of her daughter was performed at the expenses of the accused. According to her a panchayat was held with regard to the demand made by the accused, and they agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- within 8 days, but none of the panchayatdars were examined before the Court to establish the said fact. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, who are related to the deceased have not spoken anything about the demand made by the accused or harassment caused to the deceased. According to P.W.5, he came to know about the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased through P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to establish the factum of harassment caused by the accused to the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. P.W.1, father of the deceased, admitted that the accused are having 10 acres of land and 500 to 600 sheep, whereas he is not having even 1-00 acre of land and he is having 20 to 30 sheep, except that he has no other properties. When the accused is in such financial position and P.W.1 is in poor financial condition, it is unbelievable that the accused have demanded the deceased to get Rs.10,000/- from her parents. Even if the demand of Rs.10,000/- as stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 is accepted, there is no harassment or ill-treatment caused by the accused for her failure to get the said amount. Moreover, cradle ceremony was held in he house of the accused and P.W.1 has also attended the said ceremony and at that time all the family members were happy and after 15 days of the said ceremony, the deceased committed suicide. It is not the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that after cradle ceremony, the accused harassed the deceased, which led her to commit suicide. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the respondents’ counsel as the incident taken place after 3 years of her marriage, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused started harassing the deceased to get Rs.10,000/- after 3 years of her marriage cannot be believed. Therefore, the cause of death of the deceased by committing suicide cannot be connected to the alleged demand of Rs.10,000/- made by the accused. Moreover, the investigating officer, P.W.8 has not done any investigation in this case. He is not even recorded the statements of witnesses, and only basing on the statements recorded by Mandal Revenue Officer, he has filed the charge sheet. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 23rd December, 2011 Ksp