IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL RC.No. 7 6 4 OF 2005 Between: Minukuri Raji Reddy & 2-Ors. … Petitioners-Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : Order THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 7 6 4 OF 2005. O R D E R : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence passed by the II- Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2004, dated 03-05-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted by the II-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in SC.No. 42 of 2002, dated 19-2-2004, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were found guilty for the offences under section 304-B IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to run the sentences concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, briefly is that the deceased, M. Manchera @ Lavanya married with the petitioner No.1 about five years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, the parents of deceased agreed to pay total dowry of Rs.1,60,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and accordingly, paid Rs.1,20,000/- with promise to pay the balance dowry of Rs.40,000/- within one year. When the said balance dowry could not be paid by the parents of the deceased due to financial difficulties, the petitioner No.1 and his parents i.e., petitioner Nos.2 and 3, started harassing the deceased physically and mentally. Three or four times panchayaths were held in this regard and the petitioners were admonished by the elders but still they did not change their attitude. Once the deceased attempted to commit suicide at the house of the petitioners due to the cruelty meted out by her. On 04-10-2002, the petitioner No.1 beat the deceased at the instigation of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and left her and the female child at the house of her parents and returned back by warning her to get the balance dowry of Rs.40,000/-. Unable to bear with the cruelty at the hands of thepetitioners, on 06-10-2002 lat 08:00 a.m., the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set ablaze, resulting in severe burn injuries with an intention to commit suicide. She succumbed to the said injuries on 12-10-2002 at 07:00 a.m. while undergoing treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. On a complaint in this regard lodged by the deceased’s father, PW-1 on 06-10-2002 at 09:00 a.m., at Police Station Ghanpur (W), the matter was investigated into. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the petitioners for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned IV-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, complied the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offences and committed PRC.No.100 of 2002 to the Court of Sessions, Warangal, on which it was made over to the Court of II-Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, for trial. 4. On appearance of the petitioners, they were examined alleging the substance of accusation. The petitioners denied the same. Charge under section 304-Bof IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the main substratum of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and MO-1 and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the defence. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge examined the petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The petitioners denied the same. 7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioners guilty for the offences under section 304-B IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they were convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to run the sentences concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of Sessions. 8. On appeal, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence inflicted by the trial Judge. Questioning the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. PW-1 the father of the deceased, PW-2 mother of the deceased, PW-3 who is the brother of the deceased have deposed before the Court in one voice that the petitioners-accused harassed the deceased for demanding dowry and further she came to their house on 04-10-2002 and on 06-10-2002 she committed suicide by pouring kerosene. The other witnesses, those who are the witnesses to the observation was under recovery of material object. PW-9 is the Mandal Revenue Officer (Executive Magistrate), who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW-10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy and he has informed the Court that the deceased died due to 60% burn injuries and PWs-11, 12 and 13 who are the persons, who participated in the investigation. PW-8 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who recorded Ex.P7 the dying declaration of the deceased. Evaluating the evidence relied on the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and also on the basis of the dying declaration, the trial Judge convicted the petitioners as stated hereinabove. 11. On perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, it is seen that the deceased left the house of the petitioners on 04- 10-2002 but whereas it is mentioned in Ex.P-1 that the deceased was brought by the first petitioner-accused and he left the deceased in the house and further more the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, it is stated that earlier panchayats were conducted in connection with the harassment meted out by the deceased. The same was not supported by the witnesses examined by the prosecution to substantiate the same. Further in the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer submitted that he has not recorded the statement but the same was recorded by the Head Constable as per his instructions on the basis of dictation given by him. The said statement also regarding the injuries sustained by her prior to 06-10-2002 is not mentioned. The other part of the evidence relied by the trial Judge as well as Additional Sessions Judge is the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the said dying declaration was not recorded on the date of incident and why there was a delay in recording the dying declaration even though there is no evidence to show that the patient was unconscious. Further the evidence of Judicial Magistrate of First Class as stated at the time of recording the dying declaration, the relatives were also present in the place where he has recorded the statement. So this Court is of the view that the said dying declaration cannot be safely relied upon to convict the petitioners-accused and further it is the case of the prosecution that PWs-1 and 2 agreed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as dowry and they paid only Rs.1,20,000/- at the time of marriage and the demand made by the petitioners-accused is only in connection with the remaining Rs.40,000/- as agreed by PWs-1 and 2. In the absence of any further demand except the agreed amount, there is no other cogent and clinching evidence regarding harassment caused by the petitioners herein. In view of the above totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that conviction and sentences cannot be sustained. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioners-accused for the offences with which they were charged. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge against the petitioners for the offences under section 304-B of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each for the offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each for the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and as confirmed by the II- Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, be and is hereby set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners is ordered to be refunded to the petitioners without furnishing any security. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 09-11-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL RC. No. 7 6 4 OF 2005 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. Date: 09-11-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master : I s L