THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1354 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad in S.C.No.428 of 2002 on 08.07.2004. The appellant herein is the accused No.1 in the above said case and he along with his mother and father was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 4989-A and 306 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 30.09.2000 at about 12.15 hours one unknown woman aged 25 years, came to Balaji Indraprastha Apartments and asked P.W.1 about Dr. Venkateswara Rao and went up to the apartments through stair-case. After sometime, some of the children came to P.W.1 and informed him that one lady fell down from upstairs of the apartments, immediately P.W.1 rushed to the spot and found the said lady in unconscious state. Immediately with the help of P.W.11 shifted her to the clinic of P.W.9 and where she was declared dead. Thereupon, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the police and P.W.12 has registered a case in Crime No.294 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and handover the investigation to P.W.13. During the course of investigation, P.W.13 conducted the scene of offence Panchanama and got photographed the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to the Gandhi Hospital and preserved the body at Gandhi hospital. During the course of investigation, P.W.2 came to the police Station on 30.09.2000 and reported about the missing of his daughter by name Bhavani and he was taken to Gandhi Hospital Mortury, where he identified the deceased as his daughter Bhavani. P.W.2 has disclosed about the marriage of deceased with H.Guruprasad Kedelaya of Bangalore in October, 1999 and about giving of 40 Tulas of gold worth Rs.1,60,000/- and silver articles worth Rs.20,000/- at the time of marriage and the accused harassing his daughter both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing a flat and he alleged that his daughter might have committed suicide by jumping down from the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments as she is unable bear the physical and mental harassment caused by her husband and her in-laws. On 1.10.2000 P.W.7 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination and after postmortem examination the dead body of the deceased was handover to P.W.2 for conducting final rites. On the strength of the inquest report and statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 the Section of law was altered to Section 498-A and 306 IPC by S.I of police T.Kanaka Raju and after completion of the investigation, P.W.13 has filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period o f 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. Accused No.1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused No.1 has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2000 at 12.15 hours one lady gone to the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments and fell down from the said apartments and died. On the same say P.W.2 has reported about missing of his daughter and police shown the dead body of the deceased to him and he identified the dead body as that of his daughter and then stated that the marriage of his daughter was performed with accused No.1 in October, 1999 and at the time of marriage, he gave 40 tulas of gold worth Rs.1,60,000/- and silver articles worth Rs.20,000/-. He further stated that his son- in-law/accused No.1 harassed his daughter mentally and physically for getting additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- so as to purchase a flat and to start business and as she could not tolerate the harassment caused by the accused, committed suicide by jumping from the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the deceased might have fell down from the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments accidentally as the parapet wall of said apartments is at low height as admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.11 and already some people have fell down from the said apartments, but they survived. The appellant’s counsel has further pleaded that the deceased was mentally depressed, even prior to the marriage she has taken some medicines and she is having suicidal tendency, as such nothing could be attributed to the accused for the death of the deceased. The appellant’s counsel has further pleaded that except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other evidence on record to show the harassment caused by the accused for getting additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- as alleged and their evidence cannot be believed as the version stated by them before the Court was not stated before the Investigating Officer P.W.13. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued that the death of the deceased is a suicidal death and she has gone out of her house on that day to contact her husband and after talking with him on phone, she vexed with the attitude of her husband and gone to Balaji Indraprastha Apartments and committed suicide by jumpting from the said apartments. He further pleaded that the cell phone number of accused No.1 was noted down on the palm of the deceased and the same was found at the time of inquest by P.W.7 and also mentioned in the inquest report. Therefore, the cause for the suicide is the attitude of accused No.1 towards the deceased and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 categorically establishes the harassment caused by the accused to the deceased in order to get additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. In order to establish the death of the deceased, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, the watchman of Balaji Indraprastha Apartments. He has categorically stated about the deceased coming to the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments and when he asker her, she disclosed that she is going to the house of Dr. Venkateswara Rao, but subsequently he was informed by the children that some lady fell down from the top and he went there and found the same lady who came earlier was fell down. Immediately, she was shifted to nearby clinic, where the Doctor P.W.9 has declared her as dead and the said version of P.W.1 was supported by P.W.11, who is working as sweeper in the said apartments. In the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that there is possibility of slipping from the parapet wall and prior to the incident two or three persons fell down from the parapet wall but no one died, they survived as they received small minor injuries. P.W.11 also admitted in the cross-examination that after construction of the said building some of the persons fell down from the 5th floor and received some injuries, but survived and none of the victims died due to fall except on the date of incident. She also admitted that each balcony is having some small parapet wall and the same is below the standard height of 3 ½ feet and the inmates of the flats sometimes used to sat on the parapet wall. Therefore, both P.W.1 and P.W.11 admitted about the height of the parapet wall of Balaji Indraprastha Apartments, but there is no material on record to show that the deceased has gone and sat on the parapet wall and fell down from the said apartments. Immediately, after noticing the deceased fell down from the apartments, P.Ws.1 and 11 shifted her to the clinic of P.W.9 Dr.A.D.Rama Rao, he has stated about the deceased being brought to his clinic with breathless and he gave injection to her, but she could not survive and immediately he informed the same to police. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has noticed one cell phone number on left palm of victim. The other witnesses to establish the death of the deceased are the Mandal Revenue Officer P.W.7, who conducted inquest and panch witness for the inquest P.W.8 and Doctor P.W.10, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 has stated about the conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8. In the chief –examination, P.W.8 has stated that they also observed the mobile telephone number on the left palm of the deceased and P.W.7 has noted down the said telephone number in inquest Panchanama. P.W.10 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined the case of death is due to multiple injuries. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by her by a fall from the Balaji Indraprastha Apartments. Even though the appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the deceased fell down accidentally, he could not establish the same from the material available on record. Therefore, the prosecution could establish that the deceased died by committing suicide. The next point to be considered is whether the appellant is responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. To establish the said factum, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 father of the deceased, P.W.3 brother of the deceased, P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the friends of P.W.3. P.W.2 has stated about their performing the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 in the year 1999 and about giving 40 tulas of gold worth Rs.1,60,000/- and silver articles worth Rs.20,000/-. After the marriage, his daughter joined the company of accused No.1 at her matrimonial house. Three months after the marriage his daughter Bhavani came to their house and on his questioning, she has disclosed that the accused demanded to bring Rs.25,000/-. Fifteen or Twentyfive days after her arrival to their house, he collected an amount of Rs.25,000/- and took back her daughter to her in-laws house and gave the same amount to the accused. On the same day he came back to Hyderabad. Within 15 days or one month, his daughter again came back to his house, and on his enquiry he came to know that the accused Nos.1 to 3 insisted her to bring Rs.20,00,000/- from them for the purpose of purchasing a house and she also informed that she is being harassed by the accused. He also came to know that accused No.1 was addicted to all bad vices and come to the house in drunken condition. He was also informed by his daughter that accused No.1 used to came to the house late in the night and he was in the habit of kicking her with legs. Thereafter, he consoled her and took her back to her matrimonial home. After reaching their apartments, his daughter went first, and he was going slowly, when his daughter knocked the doors, the accused persons did not open the door immediately. After sometime, accused No.1 opened the door and asked her as to why she came to their house without dying there itself at Hyderabad, by saying that he kicked the suit case. Then he went to first floor and requested accused No.1 to allow his daughter into their house. When, he tried to pacify, the accused told him that he should not open his mouth and asked him to go away immediately. Then his daughter requested him to go away by saying that she will manage after sometime. As there was no alternative, he came back slowly to the railway station. Within one hour accused No.1 came to the station along with his daughter. Then he took his daughter and accused to their relatives hotel, which is situated near the station and had discussions with them, but the accused did not heed to his request, on the other hand insisted him to take back his daughter and they will think over the matter after one month. Thereafter, they returned back to Hyderabad. Even after coming to Hyderabad, he tried several times to talk with accused persons and requested them to take back his daughter. The accused persons did not agree for the same. After one month himself and his daughter went to Bangalore along with his relatives, by the time the accused already prepared some documents and asked him and his daughter to sign on the said papers. Even though he refused to sign, but however keeping in view the welfare of his daughter, he signed on the documents. After one month again his daughter came to their house and complained the same thing against the accused. On his enquiry, she informed that she was unable to bear the torture and not able to live in the said house. Thereafter, his daughter was forced to live in their house for about 3 or 4 months. His daughter also telephoned to her husband and in-laws several times and tried to convince them to give her at least the shelter in their house and that she would earn her bread by doing petty job. But the accused did not allow her to come to their house. When she talked with her husband/accused No.1, he told her why she could come all the way instead of dying there itself. On the date of incident in between 9.00 or 10.00 A.M. his daughter left the house by saying that she would talk to her husband again through telephone. She also told that she would enquire her husband where would she die either at Bangalore or at Hyderabad. Upon saying so, she left the house and she did not return back till 2.30 P.M. and thereafter he has gone to the police station and informed the matter to the police and police informed that there was a suicidal of lady near by apartment and shown the dead body and he identified the dead body as that of his daughter. In the cross-examination he expressed his ignorance whether he has stated about the said facts to the police during the course of recording his statement. P.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased and son of P.W.2, also narrated the same facts stating that those facts informed to him by his father. In the cross-examination, he denied the harassment caused to his sister by the accused. P.W.4 is the friend of P.W.3. According to him as the friend of P.W.3 he used to visit the house of P.W.3 and came to know that six months after the marriage of deceased, she was sent back to her parents house. After knowing the said fact through P.W.3, he went to their house and asked her as to what had happened and as to why she came back within six months of her marriage. On his enquiry, she told that she was being harassed by her husband and in –laws for additional dowry amount for purchase of flat and for investment in business. 10 days thereafter he came to know that she met with an unnatural death. P.W.5 another friend of P.W.3 has also stated the same facts about the deceased informing him about the harassment caused by her husband and in-laws. The investigating officer P.W.13 has admitted in his cross- examination that P.W.2 has not stated before him about the facts as mentioned in his chief-examination with regard to harassment of the accused and accused No.1 addicting to bad vices and kicking the deceased with legs and his going along with his daughter to Bangalore and accused not allowing her to coming into the house and subsequent attempts made by him to send his daughter to the house of the accused. He also admitted that P.W.3 also did not state before him about the facts as mentioned by him in his chief- examination. Therefore, the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to accused No.1 addicted to bad vices and came to home in drunken condition and harassing the deceased and kicking her with legs and not allowing her to coming to their house and asking her to go and die are the improvements made by P.Ws.2 and 3 before the Court and the said facts were not stated by them to P.W.13 Investigating Officer at the time of recording their statements. If that part of the evidence, which was not stated before the investigating officer was excluded from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is nothing on record to show that the accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- for construction of house and for doing business. P.Ws.4 and 5 are only the friends of P.W.3. According to them, they are the friends of P.W.3, they have enquired the deceased as to why she came to her house within six months of her marriage. According to them after their enquiry about the coming back to her house, within 10 days she died, which is not the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 it cannot be said that the accused has harassed the deceased in connection with demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. According to the Public Prosecutor, the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and the same is evident from the factum that the deceased has gone on the date of incident to talk to her husband over telephone. P.W.2 has stated about her daughter coming out of the house saying that she would talk to her husband on telephone and as per the evidence of P.W.8 panch witness for the inquest, they found one cell phone number on her left palm and the same was noted down by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the inquest report. P.W.9 Doctor, who treated her immediately after falling down from the apartments, has also admitted in the cross-examination that he noticed one cell phone number on the left palm of the victim. In the inquest report Ex.P.5, it was mentioned that cell phone number 09844017058 was noted on the palm of the deceased. The prosecution did not made any effort to ascertain to whom the said telephone number belongs to during the course of investigation. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the said cell phone number found on the palm of the deceased is the cell phone number of the accused No.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 also did not state about the telephone number of accused No.1, even though stated the deceased used to talk to him on phone. In the absence of the evidence to show that the cell phone number found on the palm of the deceased belongs to accused No.1, it cannot be presumed that after talking with accused No.1 the deceased has committed suicide and appellant/accused No.1 has instigated her to commit suicide to hold that the accused is guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the public prosecutor that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased was not established. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution could not establish the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court in S.C.No.428 of 2002 on 08.07.2004 is hereby set aside and the accused No.1 is accordingly acquitted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 12th August, 2011 KSP