IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2404 of 2004 DATE: 11.08.2011 Between: Pallepu Kondal Rao …… Petitioner And The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2404 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by judgment dated 04.06.2004 in Sessions Case No.146 of 2003 of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Questioning the same, this appeal is filed. 2) There is no dispute about factum of marriage between the deceased and the accused. It is alleged that their marriage took place 5 years prior to the offence and that at the time of marriage parents of the deceased gave Rs.25,000/- to the accused towards dowry. The accused was doing masonry work. They lived happily for a period of 4 years after the marriage. They have three children. It is alleged that since one year prior to the offence, the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally for the sake of additional dowry and that when the same was informed by the deceased, her parents and brother gave Rs.20,000/- to the accused one month ago and requested him not to harass the deceased and that after family planning operation of the deceased, parents and brother of the deceased gave Rs.5,000/- to the accused on his demand. It is alleged that 4 days prior to the offence, the accused harassed the deceased physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- since he has purchased Suzuki motor cycle and that as parents of the deceased were unable to pay the said amount, they requested the accused to wait for 15 days so that they would give Rs.10,000/- to him and that in spite of the accused was harassing the deceased and that due to unbearable harassment of the accused, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire on herself on 17.10.2002. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge. 3) In this appeal, it is contended that there is no harassment of the deceased by the accused for the sake of any additional dowry and that the accused was only demanding father of the deceased to repay the loan amount and that though brother and mother of the deceased were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2 on behalf of the prosecution, father of the deceased as D.W-1 did not support the prosecution case and supported the accused. 4) The prosecution specifically alleges three demands on the part of the accused for the sake of additional dowry. First demand for additional dowry was complied with by parents and brother of the deceased by paying Rs.20,000/-. According to the prosecution, the said incident took place about one month prior to the deceased committing suicide. The second demand was after the deceased underwent family planning operation; and even as per the prosecution case the said demand was also complied with by paying Rs.5,000/- to the accused. It was also prior to one month of the deceased committing suicide. The third pending demand was in respect of Rs.20,000/- after the accused purchasing Suzuki motor cycle. According to the prosecution, the said demand of the accused could not be complied with by parents of the deceased, but they promised to pay Rs.10,000/- after 15 days. Subsequently, the incident of the deceased committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself, took place. 5) In order to succeed in establishing the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. As per explanation contained in that section, the term dowry has the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Even as per the prosecution case, the alleged incidents of first demand for payment of Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry and the second demand for payment of Rs.5,000/- after the deceased underwent family planning operation, are not the reasons which lead the deceased to commit suicide. When those alleged demands were complied with, they cannot be the reason for the deceased to take decision to commit suicide. The only dispute is with regard to the alleged demand for Rs.20,000/- by the accused after purchasing Suzuki motor cycle. 6) P.W-1 deposed that 10 or 20 days after the family planning operation of the deceased, the accused purchased second hand Suzuki motor cycle and that his mother (P.W-2) was along with the deceased and the accused looking after the deceased in view of post operative care and that P.W-2 came to their house and informed that the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- for paying sale consideration for the motor cycle and that the accused was also beating the deceased for not meeting the said demand. According to P.W-1, on the same day of the said information on 16.10.2002 he and P.W-2 went to the accused and informed him about their inability to pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/-, but promised to pay Rs.10,000/- after 15 days, and that the accused became angry and asked the deceased to leave the house for not meeting the said demand, and that when he and P.W-2 came back to their village at about 4.00 P.M farm servant of the accused came and informed about the deceased pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself. In cross-examination P.W-1 deposed that the accused actually asked the deceased to approach them and bring the amount of Rs.20,000/- and that the accused did not specifically direct the deceased to leave the house in that regard. 7) It is evidence of P.W-2 that 10 or 15 days after payment of Rs.5,000/- to the accused, the accused purchased the vehicle and that she does not know about the details of it. She says that the accused beat and harassed the deceased for bringing Rs.20,000/- to pay sale consideration amount and that she saw the same personally and that she went to P.W-1 and informed the same and that one or two days thereafter she and P.W-1 went to village of the accused and informed the accused that they would pay Rs.10,000/- in about 10 days and that thereupon, the accused asked them as to who asked them to pay the amount and abused and asked them to leave the place. She further says that at about 4.00 P.M farm servant came and informed them about the deceased pouring kerosene and setting fore to herself. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that during investigation P.W-2 did not state to the investigating officer about the accused harassing the deceased for the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards sale consideration amount of the vehicle. P.W-11 who is the investigating officer, in cross-examination stated that P.W-2 did not state the said fact in her statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is an improvement in the evidence of P.W-2. When P.W-2 was not a witness for the alleged beating and harassment of the deceased by the accused for the sake of sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- of the motor cycle, the question of P.W-2 informing the said fact to P.W-1 may not arise at all. 8) In Ex.P-1 report given by P.W-1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W-10, it was stated by P.W-1 that after receiving information about the deceased pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire to herself, he, his mother and his wife went to Valgonda village and found the deceased with burn injuries and that his sister (who is the deceased) informed him that due to unbearable harassment of the deceased, she poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself as she was vexed with her life. Neither P.W-1 nor P.W-2 stated about the said fact in their evidence. It shows that the deceased was with life for about a day after the incident of setting fire to herself; and in spite of it no report was given to the police about the incident on 16.10.2002 itself during the life time of the deceased. Ex.P-1 report was given by P.W-1 to the police only after death of the deceased on 17.10.2002 i.e., one day after the incident. If report was given to the police on 16.10.2002 itself, then there would have opportunity for the police to record statement of the deceased and to take steps for recording dying declaration of the deceased through a Magistrate. To repeat, P.Ws 1 and 2 did not state in their evidence about the alleged information given by the deceased as to the reason for she committing suicide. 9) The appellant’s counsel placing reliance on Yallamanda Chand Basha V. State of A.P[1] of Division Bench of this Court, contended that mere making a demand of amounts, unless followed by an element of cruelty or harassment, does not attract Section 304-B I.P.C. In the case on hand, P.W-1 himself stated in cross-examination that the accused asked the deceased to approach her parents and bring the amount of Rs.20,000/- and the accused did not specifically direct the deceased to leave the house in that regard. It is elicited from P.W-2 and P.W-11 that in her previous statement to the police, P.W-2 did not state about the accused harassing her daughter for the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards sale consideration amount of the vehicle in her presence. In the absence of proof of harassment of the deceased for the sake of Rs.20,000/- towards payment of sale consideration of Suzuki motor cycle, it cannot be said that mere demand of Rs.20,000/- by the accused would attract penal liability under Section 304-B I.P.C. 10) It is evidence of D.W-1 who is father of the deceased that the accused demanded for repayment of loan. He says that the accused was treating the deceased well and that the accused never demanded them to pay any additional dowry amount. Though there was demand from the accused for payment of Rs.20,000/- towards sale consideration of Suzuki motor cycle, there is no evidence of the accused harassing the deceased for the sake of said amount. In Appasaheb V. State of Maharashtra[2] the Supreme Court observed that a demand of money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. 11) In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the lower Court did not appreciate law as well as material on record to reach a right conclusion. I find that the prosecution could not prove that there was any demand by the accused for the sake of additional dowry muchless to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and that the demand for Rs.20,000/- towards sale consideration of Suzuki motor cycle purchased by the accused, cannot be equated with demand for additional dowry and that in any event there is no proof in this case of harassment of the deceased for the sake of the said additional dowry leading the deceased committing suicide. Therefore, I do not agree with the finding of the lower Court on the charge framed against the accused. I find that the accused is not guilty of the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. 12) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitting him. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 11, 2011 ksh [1] 2008(2) ALT (Crl.) 113 (DB)(AP) [2] 2007(1) ALD (Crl.) 734 (SC)