THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.172 of 2003 on 15.04.2004. The appellant and his father/accused No.2 were prosecuted for the offence Under Sections 304 (B) and 498 IPC. According to the prosecution the marriage of P.W.2’s daughter by name Hema Malini was performed with accused No.1 on 9.12.1998 at Saibaba temple, Gudur, Nellore District. At the time of marriage, P.W.2 paid Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 15 tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles as demanded by the accused. After the marriage, the deceased joined accused No.1 and his parents at Hyderabad and they were living at Plot No.4, Viman Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. On further demand of accused, P.W.2 gave another 20 tulas of gold ornaments. Due to the wedlock, the deceased has blessed with a female child by name Arisha. Since the date of marriage, accused Nos.1 and 2 are harassing the deceased to get an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and accused No.1 became alcoholic and harassing her both mentally and physically. The parents of the deceased tried to settle the issue amicably and also promised the accused, that they would arrange the demanded additional dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in due course, since they had incurred losses in the business. On 22.11.2001 night, there was a big quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased and the neighbours noticed that they raised the volume of the T.V. in the house and at about 1.00 A.M suddenly became silent and at about 1.30 A.M, accused No.1 came to the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 and informed that his wife committed suicide. On the information furnished by accused No.1, P.W.1 along with his wife came to the house of accused No.1 and found the deceased was hanging to a hook of the ceiling with a saree. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.2 and on the next day morning at 6.00 A.M. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the police. Police registered the case in crime No.430 of 2001 and took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch and prepared the observation report of the scene of offence. Thereafter, police sent requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer for conducting inquest, after conducting inquest the dead body was sent for postmortem examination and after completion of the postmortem examination handed over the dead body of the deceased to P.W.2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against both the accused. Both the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1. 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 accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. Accused No.1 was also found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Accused No.2 was found not guilty for the said charges. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused No.1. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: Learned counsel for appellant has pleaded that the facts stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief-examination were not stated by them before the police. Learned counsel for appellant has further pleaded that the parents of the accused are in good financial position and they are having two houses and car and there is no need for them to demand additional dowry from P.W.2/father of the deceased. Learned counsel for appellant has further pleaded that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are said to be the neighbours, were not aware what is happening inside the house of the accused on that night, simply TV volume was raised, it cannot be presumed that there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased on that night. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly establishes the demand for additional dowry by the accused and harassing the deceased and P.W.1 has narrated all the facts in his complaint Ex.P.1, which was lodged on the very next day early morning even before the father of the deceased P.W.2 came to the Hyderabad. The neighbours, P.Ws.3 and 4 have categorically stated about the hearing of the quarrel from the house of the accused and raising the volume of the T.V. and thereafter there was calmness for sometime and later accused No.1 came to their house and knocked the door and informed them that his wife has committed suicide. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 clearly establishes that the accused has harassed the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 on 09.12.1998 at Gudur, Nellore District. At the time of marriage Rs.2,00,000/- cash and 15 tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles were presented. Thereafter, the accused demanded 20 tulas of gold and P.W.2 has given the same. Thereafter, the deceased gave birth to female child and then the accused started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/. P.Ws.1 and 2 pacified the matter and promised that they would make the payment in due course, but on 22.11.2001 the deceased died in suspicious circumstances i.e. hanging to the ceiling in the house of the accused. Therefore, the accused are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. P.W.1, who is the paternal uncle of the deceased and resident of Hyderabad has stated about the performing the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 and at the time of negotiations the accused demanded Rs.2,00,000/-. P.W.2 his brother agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and 15 tulas of gold and motor vehicle and household articles worth Rs.70,000/-. Immediately after the marriage, the deceased joined the company of accused No.1 at Viman Nagar, Begumpet. Accused No.1, deceased and parents of accused No.1 were residing in one house at Viman Nagar. On 22.08.2000 deceased gave birth to a female child at C.R. Reddy Hospital at Gudur. Accused No.1, accused No.2 and his wife went to Gudur to see the newly born child three months after the delivery and brought back the deceased to Hyderabad. In the month of December, 2000 in the evening deceased Hema Malini came to his house and informed him that both the accused quarreled with her parents at Gudur when they visited Gudur to see the child and the deceased further informed him that they did not like the female child and demanded for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and requested him to inform his elder brother to make arrangements for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the accused. On that information, he went to the house of the accused and informed them that his brother agreed to give the said amount and he would shortly pay the amount. Again in the month of September, 2001 deceased came to his house and informed him that the accused are now insisting for Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as their demand was not fulfilled immediately otherwise they asked her to leave their house or face for divorce. Again he went to the house of the accused and requested the accused to wait for some time till the arrival of his brother and assured them that his brother would pay the amount. P.W.1 telephoned his brother P.W.2 and informed him about the demand made by the accused. On the next day, his brother and his wife came over to Hyderabad and directly went to the house of accused and requested the accused that they would pay the amount shortly as demanded by them as their financial condition was not good at that time. On the same day in the noon time, his brother and his wife came to his house and informed him that they agreed to pay the amount to the accused as demanded by them. Three days prior to the date of incident deceased once again came to his house and informed him that the accused increased the harassment mentally and physically as amount was not paid to them and requested him to inform his brother at Gudur to make arrangements for payment of the amount. He informed his brother about the same. On the intervening night of 22/23-11-2001 at about 1.30 A.M, accused No.1 telephoned to him and informed him that the deceased Hema Malini was died and asked him to come and see the dead body. Immediately, he started to go to the house of accused along with his wife and reached the house of accused at 1.45 A.M. On the way to the house of accused, he telephoned to his brother at Gudur and informed that some incident took place at the house of accused and requested him to telephone to the house of the accused. By the time, he reached the house of the accused, accused Nos.1 and 2 and his wife were standing in front of their house. At the time of incident, accused No.2 and his wife were residing at Jubilee hills. He entered inside the house of accused and went to upstairs, where the deceased and accused No.1 were living and saw the dead body of deceased in the hall hanging to a hook of the ceiling. The dead body was hanging with a saree. The knees of the dead body were touching the floor. He enquired the neighbours as to how the incident has occurred. One Andrews, P.W.4 neighbour informed that he heard big cries from the house of the deceased and accused No.1 in the midnight and the volume of TV was raised within 10 minutes and thereafter what happened they do not know. At about 5.30 A.M the neighbours came to the scene of offence and enquired him whether the incident was informed to his brother at Gudur. In between 5.30 and 6.00 A.M., he went to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P.1. At about 6.30 A.M two constables, Inspector of police along with photographer came to the house and took the photographs and by the time he returned back to the house of accused, the accused and wife of accused No.2 were not present in the house. At about 1.30 P.M. his brother and his wife came to Gandhi Hospital mortuary and after arrival of his brother, inquest panachama was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. At about 5.00 or 5.30 P.M. himself, his brother and other relatives went to the police station and there their statements were recorded. He can identify the saree with which the dead body was hanging. M.O.1 is the piece of saree seized by police from the scene of offence. P.W.2, who is the father of the deceased and brother of P.W.1, has narrated the same facts as stated by P.W.1 with regard to the accused demanding additional amount of dowry and also the deceased informing P.W.1 about the harassment and P.W.1 in turn informing him through telephone about the same. He further stated that when he visited the house of the accused in September, 2001, he came to know through the deceased that accused was habituated to drinking and he was beating the deceased. On 22/23.11.2001 at about 1.30 A.M he received a telephone message from P.W.1 that some incident had occurred in the house of accused and P.W.1 requested him to give a ring to the family of accused and know what had happened. Immediately, he rang up to the house of accused, accused No.1 lifted the phone and informed him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Immediately himself, his wife, his son and relatives came to Hyderabad and they were informed that the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. Then they rushed to Gandhi Hospital mortuary and saw the dead body of the deceased. They noticed a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded their statements. At about 6.30 or 7.00 P.M. ACP came to Begumpet police station and recorded his statement. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is established that at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused No.1, P.W.2 gave Rs.2,00,000/- dowry and 15 tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded 20 tulas of gold and the same was given and after giving birth to female child, the accused demanded for Rs.1,00,000/- and started harassing the deceased. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the facts stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief-examination were not stated by them before the police in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.10, who registered the case and took up investigation and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, in the cross- examination has stated that P.W.1 has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that deceased asked him to inform the demand made by the accused to her parents and P.W.1 has not specifically stated before him that he went to the house of accused and requested them not to harass the deceased as his brother agreed to pay the amount. P.W.1 has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased informing him in the month of December, 2001 about the harassment and demanding Rs.50,000/-. He has also stated that P.W.1 has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that P.W.2 and his wife came to his house and informed him that he agreed to pay the amount to accused and went to Gudur. He also stated that P.W.2 has not stated in his statement that at the time of marriage talks at the house of P.W.1, the accused demanded net cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold, furniture worth Rs.70,000/-. He admitted that P.W.2 stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he gave 20 tulas of gold after the marriage. He has stated that P.W.2 has not specifically stated in his statement that accused No.2 and his wife picked up quarrel at Gudur as they were not properly treated. P.W.2 has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that when his brother telephoned to him, he informed about the harassment by the accused and he told him to go to the house of accused and convince them in the month of December 2001 and P.W.2 has not specifically stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he and his wife went to the house of accused and promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in ensuing December. P.W.11 A.C.P., who took up the investigation subsequently from P.W.10, again recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 also stated about the omissions in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, the above said omissions in 161 Cr.P.C. statements are with regard to P.W.1 telephoning and informing P.W.2 about the demand made by the accused and P.W.2 asking P.W.1 to go to the house of the accused and inform that he is going to pay the amount shortly and about the deceased informing him about the demand made by the accused and asking him to inform her father P.W.2. But P.W.1 in the complaint, which was lodged at 6.00 A.M. on 23.11.2001 has specifically stated about the deceased Hema Malini coming to their house and used to express her concern by telling that her husband was harassing her to get Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry and that if she leaves the house with her child, he could marry again. Several times, he visited and convinced the accused. Recently, deceased told his brother by phone that her husband intensified the harassment for want of Rs.1,00,000/-. His brother and his wife came from Gudur to Hyderabad and convinced the accused that arrangements would be made for giving the money. Recently, 4 days prior to the incident, deceased Hema Malini came to their house and informed that her husband has intensified the harassment for the sake of money. They also convinced the accused and informed the matter to his elder brother and his wife. Therefore, even though there are certain improvements in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but the facts with regard to the demand for additional dowry by the accused and harassment caused to the deceased was mentioned by P.W.1 in his Ex.P.1 complaint, which was lodged immediately after the incident. The accused tried to set up a defence that P.W.2 and his wife used to instigate the deceased to insist her father-in-law to transfer the house at Viman Nagar in the name of deceased, but the same could not be established from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 admitted in his evidence about the accused No.1 and deceased were living at Viman Nagar and the parents of the accused No.1 i.e. accused No.2 and his wife are residing at Jubilee Hills and both the houses are well furnitured. 3 months prior to the incident accused No.1 and deceased went to Tirupathi in flight. Simply, because the accused are well to do people and having two houses, it cannot be said that they have not demanded additional dowry, but the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly establishes at the time of marriage they paid Rs.2,00,000/- cash , 15 tulas of gold ornaments and household articles worth Rs.70,000/-. Subsequently, after giving birth to female child, the accused harassing the deceased to get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to P.W.1 on the intervening night of 22/23.11.2001 at about 1.30 A.M. accused No.1 telephoned him and informed him that the deceased died by hanging in his house and immediately he rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased was hanging to the ceiling with her saree. With regard to the disputes between accused No.1 and the deceased and the death of the deceased by hanging to the ceiling, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the neighbours and tenants of accused No.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that there were frequent quarrels between accused No.1 and deceased as accused No.1 used to come late in nights in drunken condition and accused No.1 addicted to alcohol. Whenever there was quarrel between them, they used to raise the volume of TV. P.W.3 further stated that one month prior to the date of incident the deceased came to their portion and narrated that the accused insisting her for additional dowry from her parents and also informed that her parents were not in a position to meet their demand as they sustained loss in the business. On 22.11.2001 at about 12.00 midnight, she heard the cries from the portion of accused No.1, immediately the volume of TV was increased, at that time herself, her husband and their children were present in the house and they did not bestow their attention towards the quarrel as it is usual happening in their house. At about 1.30 A.M. accused No.1 knocked the doors of their house and informed them that his wife committed suicide by hanging. Then P.Ws.3 and 4 went and found the deceased was hanging to the ceiling with a saree. Therefore, P.Ws.3 and 4 also specifically stated about the quarrel between the accused and deceased prior to the incident and during the quarrel they used to raise the volume of TV and on the date of incident also they heard the cries from the house of the accused and T.V. volume was also raised, but they did not bestow their attention as it was usual happening in the house of the accused. But at 1.30 A.M accused No.1 came to their house and informed them about the death of his wife by hanging, then only they came to know about the death of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 supports the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the harassment caused by accused No.1 to the deceased prior to her death and moreover P.W.3 has specifically stated about the information given by the deceased to her about the harassment caused by accused No.1 for additional dowry and her parents were not in a position to pay the same as they sustained loss in the business. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 it is established that the accused harassed the deceased prior to her death in connection with demand for dowry. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased by hanging and P.W.8 has taken the photographs of the scene of offence and P.W.9 has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest mediator P.W.7. P.W.12 Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the following antemortem injuries. 1. Ligature mark of 18 Cms in length over the front end both sides of the upper part of the neck over and above the thyroid cartilage. 2. The mark started on the left side of the neck 6 cms below left mastoid towards mid-line of the neck where it is 6 cms below left ear and 2 cms below the chin. From the mid-line of the neck the mark passed backwards and slightly upwards. On to the right side of the neck and terminated 1 cm below right angle of the mandible and 5 Cms below the right ear. The ligature mark is more prominent on the front of the neck with irregular margins and he opined that the cause of death is due to hanging. Therefore, the death of the deceased Hema Malini was otherwise than under normal circumstances. Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 in the December 1998 and she died in November 2001 i.e. within 7 years of her marriage. Moreover the accused was present in the house at the time of the incident i.e. the death of the deceased, which is one of the circumstances pointing out the guilt of the accused. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the death of the deceased was otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and also able to establish that soon before her death, she was subjected to harassment by the accused in connection with demand for dowry. As the prosecution could able to establish before the death of the deceased she was subjected to harassment in connection with demand for dowry by the accused, it shall be presumed that the accused has caused the dowry death as per the presumption available under Section 113-B of Evidence Act. But the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. With regard to quantum of sentence, the lower Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. In view of the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the lower Court has rightly imposed the sentence and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and