HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.15 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 498-A IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each; and the 1st appellant/A.1 was convicted under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. Questioning the same, A.1 to A.3 filed this appeal. 2. The deceased Lavanya, aged about 19 years, was wife of A.1. A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1. A.1’s marriage with the deceased took place on 22.05.2004. According to the prosecution case, parents of the deceased gave dowry of Rs.80,000/- in cash, 3 tolas of gold ornaments besides articles worth Rs.30,000/- to the accused as per their demand. It is alleged that subsequent to the marriage, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally, demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- from her parents and also used to beat her and necked her out of their house, instructing her to bring the same and threatening that they will not allow her to their house without the said amount of additional dowry and that when the deceased informed the same to her parents, PW.1, who is father of the deceased sold goats and pooled up Rs.5,000/- and took the deceased with him to the accused and handed over Rs.5,000/- to the accused and requested them to look after the deceased properly. It is further alleged that the accused continued their harassment, demanding balance of additional dowry amount of Rs.15,000/- and that there was panchayat in the presence of elders on 10.01.2005 in which the accused accepted their fault and assured to look after the deceased properly. It is further alleged that on 18.04.2005, A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased and beat her demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- from her parents and that A.1 brought the deceased to Narasampet and left her in the house of PW.1 and threatened her not to allow, in case she did not bring additional dowry and beat her and went away by leaving the deceased in PW.1’s house and that on 20.04.2005 at about 19.00 hrs, A.1 went to PW.1’s house in drunken state and beat the deceased and that on the request of PW.1, A.1 did not hear him and went away and that on the next day ie., on 21.04.2005, the deceased committed suicide by hanging with a saree to house beam. Plea of A.1 to A.3 is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the above charges. 3. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that there is no acceptable material to show that A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased for the sake of any additional dowry. It is further contended that evidence on record reveals that A.1 and the deceased were living separately from A.2 and A.3 subsequent to Deepavali festival and that A.2 and A.3 have no role in the life of the deceased thereafter and that prosecution witnesses deposed to amicable living of A.1 with the deceased till the deceased committed suicide. The appellants’ counsel also sought to contend that the deceased had abortion of her pregnancy during Ugadi days prior to her death and that therefore out of that depression, the deceased might have committed suicide and that A.1 was not at all responsible for suicide committed by the deceased. It is further contended by the appellants’ counsel that there is no legal evidence against A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and that what was stated by the prosecution witnesses against A2 and A3 is from what the deceased is stated to have informed them and that it is not admissible piece of evidence against A2 and A3. 4. In my opinion, abortion of pregnancy of the deceased prior to her death has no bearing in this case and it was not the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. After all, the deceased was aged hardly twenty years. There was no harassment of the deceased by any of the accused on the pretext of abortion or the deceased having no children. Marriage of the deceased with A1 took place only about a year prior to her death. In fact, in the lower Court also, abortion of pregnancy of the deceased was not put forward as the ground for the deceased to commit suicide. On the other hand, it is the consistent suggestion of the defence counsel to the prosecution witnesses during trial, that A.1 was having illicit intimacy with PW.2 who is mother of the deceased and that it was the cause for bitterness between A.1 and the deceased and it led to the deceased committing suicide. All the witnesses denied the said suggestions. There is no basis for the said reckless suggestions given by the defence counsel to the prosecution witnesses during trial in the lower Court. 5. The appellants’ counsel placed reliance on GANANATH PATTNAIK V STATE OF ORISSA[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that information or statement given by the deceased to her family members with regard to A.2 and A.3 also harassing the deceased for the sake of additional dowry, is inadmissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and if the said evidence is not considered, then there is no evidence at all against A.2 and A.3 to find them guilty under Section 498-A IPC. While dealing with such a statement of the deceased to her family members, the Supreme Court held: “Such a statement appears to have been taken on record with the aid of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act at a time when the appellant was being tried for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and such statement was admissible under clause (1) of the said section as it related to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such a statement is not admissible in evidence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC of the Indian Penal Code and has to be termed as being only a hearsay evidence. Section 32 is an exception to the hearsay rule and deals with the statements or declarations by a person, since dead, relating to the cause of his or her death or the circumstances leading to such death. If a statement which otherwise is covered by the hearsay rule does not fall within the exceptions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be relied upon for finding the guilt of the accused”. 6. PWs 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased. PW.3 is elder brother of the deceased. PW.4 is wife of PW.3. PW.6 is another brother of the deceased. PW.5 is a neighbour. PWs 8, 12 and 13 are elders who mediated this dispute between the two families in order to pacify the accused towards the deceased. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that there is delay in giving Ex.P.1 report to the police after death of the deceased. PW.1 deposed that after the incident, the villagers informed his second son Kamalakar who was at Warangal and that Kamalakar came to their village by next morning and that, as he was illiterate and as his youngest son who lives with him is also illiterate, after arrival of Kamalakar who is educated, the report was given to the police at 9.00 A.M. after arrival of Kamalakar. Even though Ex.P.1 report was prepared after arrival of Kamalakar, Ex.P.1 was not drafted by him. It was drafted by PW.14 when PW.1 gave information to him. Naturally PW.1 thought of the presence of all his sons by the time he prepared and gave Ex.P.1 report to the police, so that other family members may not blame him subsequently for giving report against family of the accused. The delay, if any, was explained by PW.1 in giving Ex.P.1 report. 7. According to PW.1 and his family members, at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.80,000/- in cash and 3 tolas of gold ornaments apart from half tola gold ring were given to A.1 and his parents. It is evidence of PW.1 that the deceased led happy marital life with A.1 for two months and that A.1 to A.3 started ill-treating the deceased demanding her to bring additional dowry and that whenever the deceased came to their house, the deceased used to narrate the harassment by weeping and that the deceased informed him about A.1 to A.3 harassing her to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. He says that he sold his goats and gave Rs.5,000/- to A.1 to A.3 at their house by taking the deceased with him and dropping the deceased in house of the accused. He further says that for some time the deceased was at her in-law’s house and that A.1 to A.3 again beat her and kicked her out of the house asking her to bring balance of additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- and that three days thereafter A.1 came to his house and that he called the elders and brought the matter to their notice and that the elders sent for parents of A.1 and that A.3 alone attended the panchayat before the elders at his house and that A.1 to A.3 told that they would see the deceased well without any harassment and without any demand for additional dowry, and took back the deceased to their house. He says that again A.1 to A.3 started harassing her for additional dowry and that they again beat the deceased and sent her to his house and that three days thereafter A.1 came to their house in drunken condition and questioned the deceased as to why she remained in her parents’ house without bringing additional dowry and that A.1 abused her in filthy language and beat the deceased and that with great difficulty, they could send away A.1 from their house. On the next day, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to house beam. In cross-examination, PW.1 stated that A.2 and A.3 beat and kept A.1 and the deceased in separate house after Deepavali festival and that the deceased came to his house after Sankranti festival as she was beaten and sent out of the house. He corrects the same and says that the deceased daughter came prior to Sankranti festival and that three days thereafter, A.1 came to take the deceased, when the matter was brought to the notice of the elders. PW.1 says that he did not visit house of A.1 to A.3 except on the occasion of inviting A.1 and the deceased for Deepavali festival and that he did not enquire neighbours of the accused as to how A.1 and the deceased led their marital life. He admits that the alleged harassment and demand for additional dowry by A.1 to A.3 were informed to him by the deceased. PW.2 supported PW.1’s evidence in all respects. In cross-examination, she admits that she was not present in the house when A.1 beat the deceased on the previous night of her death. She also admits that the alleged harassment for dowry by A.1 to A.3 was known to them through their deceased daughter only. Though PW.3 also reiterated the allegations, P.Ws 3 and 4 were not residing with PWs 1 and 2. They have also no personal knowledge, except what they gained information from the deceased as well as PWs 1 and 2. PW.5 came to know about the harassment, when PW.4 informed the same to her. PW.5 further says that the deceased informed her about A.1 to A.3 subjecting her to harassment for additional dowry. PW.5 in cross-examination deposed that the deceased and A.1 were cordial with each other from the date of marriage upto Deepavali festival. PW.6 who was residing with PWs 1 and 2 deposed that on the previous night of the incident, A.1 came to their house and beat his deceased sister. PW.6 in cross-examination deposed that A.1 was in their house for about 10 to 15 days until he beat the deceased on the previous night of the incident. It is immaterial for the purpose of this case whether A.1 was in the house of PW.1 for 10 to 15 days or only on the previous day of death of the deceased. PW.6 stated in cross-examination that A.1 beat the deceased for additional dowry. PWs 8, 12 and 13 speak about holding of panchayat around Sankranti festival in which A.1 and A.3 attended and assured to look after the deceased properly. Evidence of PW.1 is consistent with averments in Ex.P.1 with regard to the incident which took place on the previous night of death of the deceased ie. on 20.04.2005 at about 7.00 P.M., A.1 threatened to beat the deceased as well as PW.1 in case the demanded remaining additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- is not paid. The prosecution case is consistent from Ex.P.1-FIR to Ex.P.3- inquest report and also during trial in the lower Court. The lower Court considered the entire material on record in the right direction and came to a correct conclusion insofar as liability of A.1 under Section 304-B IPC is concerned. 8. Except what was informed by the deceased to PWs 1 to 6, none of the said witnesses has any personal knowledge about A.2 and A.3 subjecting the deceased to harassment and beating the deceased for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- muchless for balance of additional dowry of Rs.15,000/- after PW.1 sold his goats and paid Rs.5,000/- to the accused. In view of GANANATH PATTNAIK (1 supra) the said information said to have been given by the deceased to P.Ws 1 to 6 may not be taken as legal evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Except the said information furnished by the deceased to PWs 1 to 6, there is no other evidence to show complicity of A.2 and A.3 in this case under Section 498-A IPC. 9. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 under Section 498-A IPC and acquitting them; and the appeal is partly dismissed insofar as first appellant/A.1 is concerned, but altering period of imprisonment from ten years to seven years, in the circumstances of the case. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 31st October, 2011. PNV [1] 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 461