THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1483 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.101 of 1998 on 13.04.2004. The appellant herein was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC alleging that the marriage of the deceased Krishna Veni was performed with the accused about 6 years prior to 21.07.1997. At the time of marriage, she was paid dowry of Rs.5,000/- along with Sari samans worth Rs.5,000/- and other Lanchanams. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased lived in Ramachandraraopet of Yagarlapalli, Tadepalligudem and they were blessed with a daughter by name Anitha and a son aged 2 years. The accused was addicted to vices and spent away dowry amount and used to harass the deceased to get dowry from her father for his expenses and ill-treating her without giving food and harassing her. As the deceased could not able to bear the harassment and ill-treatment, approached her father at Vemulavada twice or thrice and brought the amounts of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000 and Rs.500/- at various intervals. Even though the accused has not properly looking after the deceased and her family, the deceased went on procuring rice from her neighbours by way of hand loans. The accused also not providing food articles for preparing food and harassing the deceased and ill- treating her and beating her cruelly and demanding her to get more dowry from her parents’ house. As she could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused, she committed suicide by hanging on 21.07.1997 at about 10.00 P.M. in her house. On receipt of the information, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and on seeing the dead body of the deceased, lodged a complaint with the police. Police took up investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.27 and M.Os.1 to 7. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Three months and further held that as the accused found guilty for the offence under Section 304 (B) IPC there is no need for recording any findings for the remaining two charges. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: Learned Senior counsel Sri T. Balareddy appearing for the accused has pleaded that there is no evidence on record to establish the demand made by the accused and the harassment caused by the accused in connection with demand for dowry. The only evidence available on record is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 and their evidence is not reliable with regard to the accused demanding additional dowry and the document Ex.P.1 said to have written by the deceased to P.W.1 does not disclose any demand by her for dowry at the instance of the accused. He also pleaded that Ex.P.2 complaint does not disclose any harassment on the part of the accused prior to the death of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 10, 12, 13 and 16 establishes the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased in connection with demand for additional dowry and as she could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused committed suicide. In order to establish the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry. In the present case P.W.1, father of the deceased has stated after the marriage on one occasion her daughter came to his house representing that the accused asking her to bring money, on that he gave Rs.1,000/- and sometime thereafter, she again visited his house and requested him for payment of Rs.2,000/-, then he gave Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, he purchased a cycle worth Rs.1,500/- as demanded by the accused. According to him, sometime thereafter the deceased addressed a letter to him to bring Rs.5,000/- as he is not having that amount, he approached the elders and the said letter is marked as Ex.P.1. The elders P.W.12 and D.Venkata Ramana visited the house of the accused, but the accused not present in the house and his daughter informed them about the harassment caused by the accused, on that the President of their village intended to take back the deceased along with them to their house, but his daughter refused to come and wanted to lead marital life with the accused. Mediation was held before P.W.18, who advised the accused to lead happy marital life with the deceased, but the accused did not stopped his harassment towards the deceased. As the deceased could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide. P.W.12 is the mediator gone to the house of accused along with P.W.1 on receiving letter Ex.P.1. According to him, P.W.1 informed him about the demand made by the accused and they have come down to Tadepalligudem and went to the house of the accused, but the accused was not present at the house. Thereafter, they have gone to the house of Suryakantam, who is also native of Vemulavada and enquired about the elders in the town for raising the dispute. She referred the name of Smt. Eli Varalakshmi as an elder and advised them to raise the dispute between her. According to them, they approached Eli Varalakshmi and narrated all the aspects to her, who has advised the accused to live happily with the deceased. The said E.Varalakshmi was examined as P.W.18, and she turned hostile to the prosecution. She has categorically stated that the accused and his wife never approached her in connection with their family dispute and she do not know the father-in-law of the accused and they never raised any dispute before her at her house at Tadepalligudem. Therefore, the version of the prosecution with regard to holding mediation by P.W.18 at the instance of P.Ws.1 and 12 could not be established. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly relied upon Ex.P.1, which is a letter written by the deceased to P.W.1. On reading of the original letter Ex.p.1, which was written in Telugu, it shows that the deceased only requested her father for adjustment of Rs.5,000/- within 10 days, otherwise they all 4 of them are going to die. She also specifically mentioned that she would repay the amount at their convenience. She also further made a request to get the amount from somebody and make the payment to them. Therefore, the contents of the letter do not disclose that the said letter was written by the deceased when the accused has demanded for payment of additional dowry. If really, there is a demand for payment of additional dowry, she would not have mentioned that she along with her children and accused would die if the amount is not paid to her and she would repay the amount. In Ex.P.2 complaint lodged by P.W.1, it is mentioned that the son- in-law harassed his daughter for dowry and sent her to his house, on that she took some amount from them and went to her husband’s place and this type of things happened so many times and they raised the dispute before the elders. In the meantime, again he harassed her and sent her to bring the amount. On that the elders admonished the accused and sent back to her husband’s place. As already discussed above, the prosecution could not establish about the mediation held by P.Ws.1 and 12 before P.W.18 and the mediator admonishing the accused for his demand for additional dowry. The evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose about the harassment caused by the accused. According to him, deceased used to come to his house and took the amounts from him. In the letter Ex.P.1 also, she requested for payment of Rs.5,000/- as loan. Moreover, in the cross-examination P.W.1 has admitted that the accused never demanded him personally for any amount and also stated that his daughter requested for the amount as a loan and he also admitted that the accused never demanded him for the amount as additional dowry. Therefore, whatever amount he has paid to the deceased cannot be said to be paid on demand made by the accused. Admittedly, the deceased died due to hanging within 7 years of her marriage, but the prosecution could not establish that prior to her death she was subjected to harassment or cruelty by the accused in connection with demand for dowry. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that as the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage while she was living with the accused, there is no need for the deceased to die, unless the accused subjected her to cruelty and harassed her. He further observed that there is no need for deceased to commit suicide leaving her two young children to the mercy of others. He has not recorded any finding with regard to the harassment caused by the accused in connection with demand for dowry prior to her death. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the harassment or cruelty on the part of the accused towards the deceased in connection with demand for dowry prior to her death, it cannot be said that the accused has caused the dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.101 of 1998 on 13.04.2004 is hereby set aside and the accused is accordingly acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 22nd September, 2011 Ksp