HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 2007 DATE:09.08.2010 Between: Tummala Venkateswar Rao …… Petitioner. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: 1. The Appellant/1st accused (A-1) was convicted by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry by judgment dated 02.02.2007 in Sessions Case No.272 of 2004 for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. 2. Deceased Neelima was married to A-1 on 12.02.2003. Even prior to marriage, Neelima was related to A-1. Both parents of Neelima as well as A-1 are residents of Rajahmundry. A-1 was working as clerk in Commercial Taxes Department at Kakinada. It is alleged that at the time of marriage of Neelima with A-1, P.W.1 who is father of Neelima paid dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and gave 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to Neelima and Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle to A-1 and that subsequently he presented gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns and cash of Rs.1,000/- towards ‘Manugudupulu’ to A-1. It is further alleged that though A-1 was having offers from other alliances for dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-, A-1 preferred to marry Neelima after seeking her. After marriage, Neelima stayed in her parents’ house for five months and A-1 used to visit her in her parents’ house. It is alleged that even during that time, A-1 was commenting about P.W.1 not paying sufficient dowry and demanding additional dowry. In July, 2002, Neelima was sent to A-1’s house for leading marital life. It is further alleged that A-1 and his family members were asking her to do entire house hold work and torturing her to bring additional dowry and that the accused were not providing food properly and were not meeting her requirements and harassing her. It is alleged that on 23.10.2003, when P.W.1 invited A-1 to his house for Deepavali Festival, A-1 refused to go and stated that he has no interest and asked P.W.1 to take back his daughter and send her along with further dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- or otherwise not to send his daughter for marital life to him. On 25.10.2003 it was Deepavali Day. On that night, at about 7.30 p.m when every other person in P.W.1’s house was joyful, Neelima went inside a room in P.W.1’s house and consumed Endosulfan 35% E.C which is a pesticide poison and raised cries and died after she was taken to Alert Critical Care Centre, Rajahmundry while the doctor was examining her. 3. For charge under Section 304-B IPC, A-1 pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court found A-1 alone guilty of the charge and not the other accused who are his family members. 4. P.Ws.1 to 5 are the witnesses who spoke to affairs relating to A- 1’s marriage with Neelima and circumstances after their marriage leading to suicide of Neelima. P.W.1 is father, P.Ws.2 and 4 are cousins, P.W.3 is elder sister and P.W.5 is maternal uncle of Neelima. P.W.13 is the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Rajahumundry Urban who conducted inquest on dead body of Neelima on 26.10.2003 under the cover of Ex.P-20 inquest report in the presence of panch witnesses. P.W.10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Rajahmundry who conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of Neelima. She gave Ex.P-16 post-mortem examination report. After the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada sent Ex. P-17 report on viscera after analysing the same, P.W.10 gave Ex. P-18 final opinion certificate to the effect that death of Neelima occurred due to consumption of Endosulfan about 18 to 30 hours prior to post-mortem examination. P.W.14 is the investigating officer who investigated into this crime and filed charge sheet/final report before the Committal Magistrate. Result of this appeal is depends on assessment of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. 5. In so far as payment of dowry of Rs.4,50,000/- and payment of Rs.50,000/- to A-1’s sisters towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam, it may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to go into that dispute because there is a civil suit O.S.No.60 of 2004 pending between P.W.1 and A-1 in Senior Civil Judge court, Rajahmundry for recovery of the same, and since there are no convictions against A-1 for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act . That suit was filed by P.W.1 against A-1 and others after death of Neelima. Payment of dowry or not, is not the criterion for determining whether A-1 is guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The statutory facts required for making out a case under Section 304-B IPC are as follows: a) that a woman died, b) that death of that woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, c) that such death was within seven years of her marriage, d) that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband of any relative of her husband, e) that such cruelty or harassment was in connection with any demand for dowry, and f) that such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about death of Neelima within seven years of her marriage with A-1. Further, the prosecution has proved by evidence of P.W.10 and Exs.P.16 to P.18 that Neelima’s death was not a normal death but due to suicide by consuming Endosulfan which is a pesticide poison. Therefore, the only question to be decided herein is whether Neelima was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. 6. It is mainly contended by the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that Neelima resided with A-1 in A-1’s house for hardly 16 days subsequent to her marriage with A-1 and before her death. It is immaterial whether the deceased lived in A-1’s house for 16 days or more days, because it is not a relevant consideration to decide the issue. Even though the deceased remained in her father’s house for about 5 months after marriage, A-1 was making visits to P.W.1’s house as both the houses are in Rajahmundry itself separated by about one kilometre. It is evidence of P.W.1 that for 5 months Neelima was with them and A-1 used to come to see his wife and that A-1 used to demand Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry whenever he visited his house and that it was informed to him by Neelima and that he expressed his inability for the same. He says that after five months, Neelima was sent to join A-1 and that after four days Neelima returned and that as per version of Neelima, all the accused were demanding her to bring Rs.2,00,000/-. At this stage, it may be noted that A-1 was tried in the lower court along with his family members as co-accused. The lower court acquitted other family members, but convicted A-1 alone. Neelima was in A.1’s house for Varalakshmi Vratham. He says that all the accused demanded him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- when he went to see Neelima for Vinayaka Chavithi festival. He further says that the accused entrusted work of servant maid to Neelima and that A-1 used to beat Neelima for dowry and that Neelima used to inform the harassment through phone. Even though P.W.1 stated that he sent his sister-in-law Chikkam Venkata Ramana and her daughter-in-law Kanaka Mahalakshmi for mediation, the prosecution did not examine Chikkam Venkataramana as witness. It is evidence of P.W.1 that on 23.10.2003 he went to A-1 and invited him and Neelima for Deepavali Festival and that all the accused asked him to take away Neelima as he did not pay dowry and expressing another marriage will be performed to A-1 with another lady, so that he would get promotion. P.W.1 took Neelima to his house on 23.10.2003 and A-1 did not accompany him. P.W.1 says that A-1 asked him to send back Neelima with cash only. He further says that Neelima expressed her intention to commit suicide as she came alone to his father’s house and narrated harassment made by the accused. P.W.1 says that again he invited A-1 on 25.10.2003, but he refused to come and that on the same day at about 7.30 p.m when all members of P.W.1’s were celebrating Deepavali Festival, Neelima consumed pesticide poison in bed room. Ex.P-1 First Information Report given by P.W.1 is consistent with and corroborative of P.W.1’s evidence. P.W.1 gave more details in Ex.P-1 report. In cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that Neelima came to his house not on Vinayaka Chavithi day but two days before Vinayaka Chavithi and that two days after Vinayaka Chavithi he personally accompanied Neelima to her in law’s house. He says that he was informed by the deceased that she was beaten by A-1. He says that he might not have stated before the Mandal Revenue Officer about A-1 beating the deceased for dowry or about Neelima informing him about the same. 7. P.W.2 is Kanaka Mahalakshmi. She is daughter-in-law of P.W.1’s brother. It is her evidence that Neelima informed her about A-1 demanding Rs.2,00,000/- dowry as he got another alliance with dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and about the accused harassing her for additional dowry. P.W.2 is one of the two persons who were sent by P.W.1 to A.1’s house as mediators. She says that when they went to A.1’s house as mediators, they were not allowed to enter into the house and that when they went for second time, the accused abused them and that it happened prior to Deepavali Festival and that the accused insisted for Rs.2,00,000/- and informed about their intention to go for another marriage for A-1 with another lady for dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and asked them to take Neelima with them. It is P.W.2’s further evidence that Neelima wept on hearing those words. In cross-examination, she says that she visited A.1’s house on two occasions before Neelima’s death and that they went only to convey message that P.W.1 cannot give Rs.2,00,000/-. Though some omissions are alleged in her previous statements, those omissions could not be proved by the defence counsel as per law. P.W.3 deposed that the deceased informed her about A-1 demanding Rs.2,00,000/- more as he missed alliance for Rs.15,00,000/- and that the deceased informed her about the accused harassing her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. P.W.3 further says that Neelima expressed her grief as her husband did not come for want of Rs.2,00,000/-. She says that on previous day and on the day of Deepavali Festival also P.W.1 (her father) invited A-1 for the festival and that as A-1 did not come for festival and that the deceased Neelima wept and expressed her intention not to live. It is evidence of P.W.4 that the accused treated Neelima as servant maid and that the accused were insisting for Rs.2,00,000/- more stating that another alliance with Rs.15,00,000/- was ready for them. In cross-examination, he deposed that he never interacted with the accused. It is not known how P.W.4 came to know about the said facts. 8. It is evidence of P.W.5 that A-1 used to visit Neelima during five months when she stayed in P.W1’s house after her marriage with A-1 and that A.1 used to demand extra dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and it was informed by Neelima to his father and sister and he heard the same as he was there. He says that he told A-1 not to ask for additional dowry as it was not proper and P.W.1 would pay if possible. He further says that after five days of Neelima was brought to P.W.1’s house for the month of Ashadam, Neelima informed that A-1 was continuing to demand for dowry and she was treated as servant maid in A-1’s house and A-1 told her about he having another offer of higher dowry. It is his evidence that P.W.1 brought Neelima and that A-1 did not come for Deepavali Festival and that Neelima was sad as A-1 did not come for the festival. He says that Neelima’s sister and her husband came to P.W.1’s house for festival and that Neelima wept as she was alone and that all of them consoled her saying that they would talk later. 9. The above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 is consistent to the effect that A-1 was demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and was harassing Neelima for that purpose. It is also consistent in P.W.1’s evidence and in Ex.P-1 that Neelima was sent by A-1 along with P.W.1 to P.W.1’s house and that A-1 did not come to P.W.1’s house for celebrating Deepavali Festival and that A-1 asked P.W.1 to send back Neelima to his house along with additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- only. Even though Neelima’s sister and sister’s husband came to P.W.1’s house for celebrating Deepavali Festival, A-1 did not attend P.W.1’s house in spite of he being a resident of the same town and even though it was first Deepavali Festival after marriage between Neelima and A-1. It made Neelima to suffer grief, due to which she wept in the presence of all family members and also expressed her intention not to live. There is sufficient and reliable evidence for prosecution to the effect that A-1 was demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, which demand of A-1 could not be met with by P.W1. For that reason, A-1 was harassing Neelima. A-1 was also threatening that he may go for another marriage as he had another alliance with offer to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as dowry. A- 1’s failure to go to P.W.1’s house along with Neelima for celebrating first Deepavali Festival after their marriage, was only due to non payment of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- demanded by him. It resulted in Neelima becoming sad driving her to take decision to end her life. A-1 harassed Neelima mentally by his failure to attend Deepavali Festival in P.W.1’s house for non payment of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was the proximate cause which weighed that Neelima to take the decision of committing suicide. 10. It is contended for the appellant that family of Neelima was suffering from psychological disorder as many members in that family committed suicide and that Neelima’s family members are prone to commit suicide. But, except giving certain suggestions to P.W.1 and P.W.3 which were promptly denied by those witnesses, the appellant could not prove suicidal tendencies in Neelima’s family. P.W.1 in cross- examination deposed that he had younger brother by name Krishna who is no more and that Krishna’s wife Suryavathi is also no more. He denied the suggestion that both Krishna and Suryavathi died committing suicide. He says that his elder brother Satyanarayana is also no more. He denied the suggestion that Satyanarayana died in suspicious circumstances. He says that he has another younger brother by name Venkateswara Rao and that Sridevi who is daughter of Venkateswara Rao is no more. He admits that Sridevi died by committing suicide while working as Nurse. He denied the suggestion that P.W.3 Sudharani who is eldest daughter during the year 1992 or 1993 consumed acid and was treated in Chaitanya Hospital. P.W.3 denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that she was treated in Chaitanya Hospital as she consumed acid. P.W.3 says that she was treated for appendicitis. P.W.1 says that he had another elder brother by name Subba Rao and that Subba Rao’s wife Satyavathi is no more. He says that he does not know whether Satyavathi committed suicide by setting fire to herself. P.W.1 says that he heard that Satyavathi died in fire accident. Thus, except Sridevi who is daughter of P.W.1’s younger brother Venkateswara Rao, no other person in P.W.1’s family committed suicide. Therefore, it cannot be said that Neelima comes from a family which has got suicidal tendencies. 11. It is contended for the appellant that Neelima intended to marry P.W.5 who is her maternal uncle and that for that reason Neelima did not join A-1 for five months after marriage and resided in A-1’s house only for 16 days and committed suicide as she was sad for not marrying P.W.5. No doubt, P.W.5 in cross-examination deposed that he was residing in P.W.1’s house till death of Neelima. As can be seen from Ex.P-16 post-mortem examination report, Neelima was aged about 21 years by the time of her death. Whereas, P.W.5 was described as aged 35 years when he gave evidence in the lower court on 23.08.2006. P.W.5 was aged about 32 years by the date of death of Neelima. There was difference in age of about 11 years between Neelima and P.W.5. There is absolutely no indication in cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 5 that Neelima intended to marry P.W.5 and became frustrated as she could not marry P.W.5. P.Ws.1 and 5 totally denied suggestion of the defence counsel in this regard in their cross-examination. There is no factual basis for this contention of the appellant. 12. Pointing out certain portion in cross-examination of P.W.12 who is panch witness, it is contended that P.W.1’s family members are not visiting terms to others. It has no relevance for the purpose of this case. Even though they may not have visiting terms with others, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 disclosed that among the relations they are on visiting terms only. 13. Thus, on close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 clearly established that Neelima committed suicide because she felt mentally harassed by A-1 for not attending Deepavali Festival in P.W.1’s house because A-1 was not provided with additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- as demanded by him. Their evidence further proved that A-1 was harassing Neelima even since marriage for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and A-1 was threatening to go for another marriage with dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- in case Neelima’s father P.W.1 could not meet his demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The evidence of P.W.1 further revealed that on 23.10.2003, A-1 sent Neelima along with P.W.1 to P.W.1’s house and asked P.W.1 to send back P.W.1 with the demand cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased Neelima was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband A.1/appellant in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the said cruelty and harassment was soon before death of Neelima by way of suicide. The prosecution has proved all the statutory facts required for constituting offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC against A-1. It is evident that A-1 who has been working in Commercial Taxes Department, was too commercial in his life also and in his behaviour towards his wife Neelima and her father P.W.1. The lower court rightly found A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. I have no hesitation to confirm the said finding of guilt recorded by the lower court against A-1/appellant. 14. I do not find any mitigating circumstances to alter the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years imposed by the lower Court on A- 1/appellant. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date: 09.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 2007 Date: 09.08.2010 Gk.