THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.306 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the judgment dated 08.08.2007 in S.C.No.581 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shadnagar filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.18 of 2005 on the file of Madgul P.S alleging that D.Shashikala was married to the first accused in November 2003 and the bride’s father Venkataiah gave 1 ¼ tola gold, Rs.20,000/- cash, 20 tolas of silver and household utensils at the time of marriage and the husband used to come home in drunken state and drove away Shashikala from the marital home on four or five occasions. The father was sending her back. On 5.5.2005 the accused 1 to 3, sister of the first accused and her husband drove away Shashikala from the house demanding to bring the remaining dowry amount out of the agreed amount of Rs.60,000/-. Venkataiah brought back Shashikala to the marital home and paid Rs.5,000/-. He was informed that Shashikala was admitted in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad with burn injuries and she died on 19.5.2005 at about 2.00 PM. When Venkataiah and his wife rushed to the Osmania General Hospital, before the death of Shashikala, she informed them that the accused and the sister of the first accused and her husband poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The report of Venkataiah was registered by Head Constable 1170 as a crime and the scene of offence was examined under the cover of a panchanama and a rough sketch was drawn. A plastic kerosene tin was seized in the presence of Varikuppala Yadaiah and D. Bakkaiah, the independent mediators. Though the Head Constable No. 1170 tried to record the dying declaration of Shashikala at the Osmania General Hospital, he could not do so as she was unconscious. After her death, the Mandal Revenue Officer, on request from the police, held an inquest over her dead body. The dead body was also subjected to postmortem examination and the Sub Divisional Police Officer, on conducting further investigation found that the sister of the first accused and her husband were not in the village at that time and that they are inhabitants of Injamur village and not Madgul. As such their names were deleted from the case. The accused 1 to 3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and were prosecuted. 3 On taking cognizance of the offences in PRC No.42 of 2005, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalwakurthi. On committal to the Court of Session, the Court of Session made over the case to the trial court, which framed charges under sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act for which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 toP.14 and M.O.1 during trial and the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Except Ex.D.1, no other defence evidence was adduced on their behalf. 4 The trial court rendered the impugned judgment referring in detail to the factual background and the prosecution evidence and found that except P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the parents of Shashikala, all other material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was observed to be only a hearsay evidence on the alleged information from Shashikala and they never witnessed any accused beating and torturing Shashikala for the balance of the dowry. The trial court also noted that the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 given to the police and their evidence before the Court were different and P.W.2 denied stating to the police as in Ex.D.1. After noting the discrepancies in detail, the trial court took adverse note of the total absence of any independent evidence in corroboration of the alleged cruelty and harassment and found it unfortunate that even the dying declaration of the deceased could not be recorded. Under the circumstances, the trial court concluded the guilt of the accused to have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. 5 The State through the learned Public Prosecutor challenges the said acquittal in this appeal contending that P.Ws.1 and 2 were the most competent witnesses to speak about the disputes, while P.Ws.3 and 4, the neighbours poured water when the victim was in flames. The ingredients of the offences have been made out and hence it was desired that the acquittal be reversed. 6 Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy learned counsel for the accused are heard. 7 The point for consideration is whether the offences with which the accused were charged were established beyond reasonable doubt? 8 P.W.1 the father of the deceased-Shashikala admitted that the first accused and the deceased lived happily for one year and the failure of P.W.1 to pay the entire promissed dowry of Rs.60,000/- led to the cruelty and the harassment. There was no reason for the accused to keep silent for about one year. If they were aggrieved, they must have been aggrieved right from the marriage when P.W.1 defaulted in paying the agreed dowry. The alleged beatings of Shashikala by any of the accused at any time were not corroborated by any medical evidence or any injuries suffered during any such incident or any complaint to anybody and if the accused did not object to the promise by P.W.1 to give the balance dowry within six months when they brought Shashikala along with cash of Rs.5,000/-, there could have been no reason for them to indulge in further cruelty and harassment to Shashikala resulting in her life ending within one month. When Shashikala allegedly told her parents in the hospital about the accused 1 to 3 and the sister of the first accused and her husband beating her, pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire, no body else was admittedly present and if the evidence for the prosecution is as though, there was no possibility of recording the dying declaration of Shashikala after the incident or after her admission into the hospital till her death, the alleged statement of the deceased to P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been considered to be natural or possible. P.W.1 admitted that after the information from the deceased, he went to the police to give Ex.P.1 report only after two days and such silence for two days also could not have been the natural reaction of a father seeing his daughter fighting for her life with burns due to an atrocity committed by the husband and his family members. When the father admitted that when Shashikala stayed at their house for a month, it was the husband and his father that took her away to their house, any intention on the part of the accused to snap the marital tie cannot be presumed. P.W.1 admitted that there was never any panchayat before any elders and never any complaint to the police about any misconduct of the accused during the lifetime of Shashikala and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 necessarily tainted with interestedness can be accepted only on finding some independent corroboration from the facts and circumstances on record. 9 P.W.1 admittedly did not even enquire any neighbours of the accused and the version of P.W.2 is broadly the same as that of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 differed about the period for which Shashikala has to stay back in their house after the first demand for the balance of dowry and the trial court concluding the claims of P.Ws.1 and 2 to be only hearsay evidence cannot be faulted under the circumstances. 10 P.Ws.3 and 4 only poured water on the person of Shashikala when she came out from the house with flames and P.W.5 also only saw the deceased coming out of the house with flames. P.W.3 stated that no body was responsible for the death of the deceased and all the accused were looking after the deceased very affectionately. There were no quarrels according to PW.3 and P.W.4 claimed that the accused were not at the house at that time and he was also sure that the accused were very affectionate to the deceased. PW.5 also stated that to his knowledge there was no harassment or ill-treatment by the accused to the deceased and they were living amicably. P.Ws.4 to 7 stated that the deceased committed suicide and P.W.8, the mediator denied any scene of offence panchanama being conducted in his presence and so was the evidence of PW.9. P.W.10, the inquest mediator admitted that he does not know what was written in the inquest report, though he tried to corroborate Ex.P.8 in his evidence, which throws doubts on the claims of PW.1 and the investigating officer as PW.11 did not explain as to why he found the allegations against the sister of the first accused and her husband to be false. Since the allegations in Ex.P.1 against those two individuals and their involvement in killing Shashikala was found false by the prosecution itself, the credibility of the allegations against the accused 1 to 3, which do not appear separable, naturally become doubtful. 11 Under the circumstances, the conclusions of the trial court about the absence of proof of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt do not appear to be divorced from broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record and no strong convincing reasons are shown for interference with the judgment of acquittal. 12 Hence the Criminal appeal is dismissed. ------------------------ G. Bhavani Prasad, J. 20.12.2011 Kvsn