THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006 Date: 05-11-2011 BETWEEN: B. Anjaneulu ………..Appellant. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. …………Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant/A1 was convicted by the lower Court under Section 498A IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of `.1,000/-; and was also convicted under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of `.5,000/-. Questioning the same, A1 filed this appeal. Even though A2 & A3 were also tried along with A1, the lower Court found A2 & A3 not guilty of the charges. 2. Marriage of the deceased Nagamani with A1 took place on 01-03-2002. She died by hanging herself by way of suicide on 12-04-2002, in about 42 days after her marriage. P.Ws.1 & 2 are parents of the deceased. P.W.3 is maternal uncle and P.W.4 is maternal grand mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is wife of P.W.3. P.W.6 is a neighbour of A1 and the deceased. A1 is cousin of P.W.2. It is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that prior to the marriage, parents of the deceased agreed to give dowry o f `.71,000/- to A1 and that out of the said agreed dowry amount, sum of `.30,000/- was paid on the date of engagement or preparation of Lagna Patrika and that balance of dowry of `.41,000/- was agreed to be paid in about two months thereafter. Even before expiry of the said period of two months, the deceased died by committing suicide. The lower Court though framed charge under Section 304B IPC, did not find favour with the prosecution on that charge. The lower Court taking aid of presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act found A1 guilty under Section 306 IPC. It is evidence of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly P.Ws.1 & 2 that A1 was demanding the deceased to bring balance of dowry of `.41,000/- from her parents and that the deceased conveyed the said information to the parents about a week prior to the date of offence and also on the previous day of the offence. Because of the said evidence let in by the prosecution, the lower Court came to the conclusion that there was cruelty by way of harassment of the deceased by A1 for the sake of the dowry amount. 3. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that evidence of prosecution witnesses about the demand of balance of dowry of `.41,000/- by A1 does not find place in Exs.P4 & P5-death notes left by the deceased at the place of her hanging. Ex.P4 is addressed to father/P.W.1 by the deceased. Ex.P5 was addressed to A1 by the deceased. In the said death note letters, the deceased made some attempt to explain as to why she decided to commit suicide. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that if really there was cruelty on the part of A1 by way of harassment of the deceased for the sake of bringing balance of dowry of `.41,000, the deceased would not have failed to mention the said fact in the said death notes. The said reason is conspicuously absent in Exs.P4 & P5. Therefore, I am satisfied that demand of A1 for the sake of balance of agreed dowry of `.41,000/- is not the cause for death of the deceased. Since the said amount of `.41,000/- is part of the agreed dowry amount, which was agreed to be paid in about two months after the agreement, it was a pending cause in order to allege the same against A1. But it was not the root cause for the deceased to commit suicide, as is evident from Exs.P4 & P5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked in this case in order to find that there was abetment on the part of A1 for the suicide committed by the deceased. In the absence of proof of abetment and in the absence of availability of presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the lower Court should not have found A1 guilty under Section 306 IPC. 4. No doubt, absence of harassment of the deceased for the sake of balance of dowry of `.41,000/-, may rule out applicability of Clause (b) of explanation to Section 498A IPC in this case. At the same time, it has to be examined whether there is proof in respect of Clause (a) of explanation to Section 498A IPC in this case. Evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and other prosecution witnesses as well as Exs.P4 & P5-death note letters are consistent to the effect that A1 expressed his dislike for the deceased and stated that he married the deceased not because he liked A1, but because her uncle requested him to marry the deceased. It is further on record from evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and other prosecution witnesses as well as from the Exs.P4 & P5 that A1 had prior illicit intimacy with one Pushpalatha @ Pushpa of the same village and that A1 expressed with the deceased to the effect that the deceased was not giving happiness in marital life in the same manner in which Pushpalatha was giving happiness to him. As per Exs.P4 & P5, it was the root cause for her decision to commit suicide. A1 having illicit intimacy with another girl is entirely different from A1 comparing happiness given by his lover/mistress with the happiness being given by the deceased to him. This certainly amounted to mental cruelty on the part of A1 towards the deceased. This comparison of happiness given by the two girls to A1 in the presence of the deceased, irked the deceased and disheartened the deceased, driving her to the extreme step of committing suicide. This act on the part of A1 squarely attracts Clause (a) of explanation to Section 498A IPC making him liable for punishment thereunder. 5. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/A1 under Section 306 IPC; and the appeal is partly dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/A1 under Section 498A IPC. __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Date:05.11.2011 mrb