THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.45 OF 2006 DATED: 27-08-2010 Between Vamaravilli Srinivas Rao …Petitioner-A1 And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.45 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 07-10-2005, in Crl.A.No.32 of 1999, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: A1 and A2 are residents of Kothapalli village of Kothabommali Mandal. Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2. A1 married the deceased in the month of March, 1991 and at the time of marriage, he was given two tulas of gold besides a gold ring weighing six annas, a Godrej almyrah and other articles. Subsequently, A1 and his mother (A2) used to harass the deceased to bring additional dowry. A1 wrote scandalous letters to her when she went to her parents place for first delivery. Thereafter, she joined him for Sankranti festival in January, 1993. On 24-01-1993 her father received a letter that she was seriously ill. As deceased suffered dislocation of arm, A1 sent her to her parents place and he did not care for her at the time of her carrying for second time. On 02-10-1995, A1 brought her to their matrimonial home and started ill- treating her saying that he would contract second marriage. A1 used to beat her as she failed to bring additional dowry. On 10-04-1996, neighbour of A1 saw a pall of smoke coming out from the house of the accused and informed A1. Then A1 went into the house and found his wife lying dead with burn injuries. Thus, the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused. Hence, the charge. 3. Charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’) against A1 and A2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 besides case properties, M.Os. 1 to 10. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide judgment, dated 22-02-1999, in Sessions Case No.121 of 1997, while acquitting A2 of the offences with which she was charged and A1 of the charge under Section 3 of D.P. Act, found A1 guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years of the charge under Section 304-B IPC, further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months of the charge under Section 306 IPC, further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months of the charge under Section 498-A IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo RI for three months of the charge under Section 4 of D.P. Act. On appeal by A1, the appellate Court, confirmed the convictions and sentences recorded against him. Challenging the same, A1 preferred this revision. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of both the Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 contended that the trial Court placing reliance on Exs.P1 and P2 convicted A1, that if the contents of Exs.P1 and P2 are seen, they do not disclose any demand of dowry, but only would go to show that a request to the parents of the deceased to provide money so as to attend to the urgent needs, that therefore, this aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by both the Courts below and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 6 coupled with the recitals in Exs.P1 and P2 would go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry, that the trial Court rightly drawn presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that if it is drawn, it can be presumed that the petitioner abetted the deceased to commit suicide, that both the Courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are improper, illegal or incorrect or admissible evidence was overlooked or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. Charge levelled against the petitioner is under Section 304-B IPC. To prove the charge under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following conditions. Firstly: The death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; Secondly: Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; Thirdly: She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband soon before her death; Fourthly: Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and Mere cruelty is not an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. It must be related to demand of dowry. The evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 6 did not disclose that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Dowry is defined under Section 2 of D.P. Act, which means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly; a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, b) by parents of either party to a marriage or by other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The trial Court placed reliance on Exs.P1 and P2, which are the letters said to have been written by the petitioner herein to the father of the deceased to base a conviction. Though it is not permissible exercising the revisional powers to re-appreciate the evidence, necessarily the evidence has to be referred to know whether the findings are correct. A perusal of Exs.P1 and P2, which are not disputed even by the petitioner herein would go to show that he made a request to the father of the deceased to send money for his urgent necessities. It is only request made by the petitioner. There was no demand by him. Therefore, if the contents of Exs.P1 and P2 are taken as true and correct, it cannot be said that the petitioner made a demand for certain amount to meet his urgent necessities. When initial burden has not been discharged by the prosecution, question of drawing presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act does not arise. The prosecution after discharging its burden, it shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption. When the prosecution itself has not discharged its burden, question of rebutting the presumption does not arise. If the documents i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 are eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Both the Courts below gave illegal findings and therefore, the petitioner is liable for acquittal. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 07-10-2005, in Crl.A.No.32 of 1999, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner-A1 is found not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same. Bail bonds of the petitoner-A1 shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-A1 shall be returned to him. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:27-08-2010 Hsd