IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.952 of 2001 Between: Keesara Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Anantha Ramulu ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. ....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Counsel for the Respondent : The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINLA APPEAL No.952 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – sole accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment, dated 13.07.2001, in S.C.No.708 of 1999, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case as delineated from the prosecution witnesses are as follows: Jyothi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) is the youngest daughter of PWs.1 and 2. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed on 30.05.1998 at the house of PWs.1 and 2. At the time of marriage, PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, gold ornaments and household articles worth Rs.40,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, both the accused and the deceased lived happily for about two months at Nalgonda. Thereafter, they shifted their residence to the native village of the accused. At that time, the accused was working as a teacher on contract basis. In the month of December, 1998 and also in the month of January, 1999, the deceased complained to her parents that after going to Narayanpur, accused started saying that her complexion was black and she does not know any work and asked her to get Rs.30,000/- to secure a job. On that, PWs.1 to 3 went to Narayanpur and requested the accused not to beat and ill-treat the deceased and informed the accused that by selling the land, PW.1 paid the dowry amount and that he was not in a position to pay Rs.30,000/- as demanded and promised to pay some time later, for which the accused agreed. Three or four days later the accused and the deceased came to the village of PWs.1 and 2. On 05.02.1999 PWs.1 and 2, deceased and one Yadaiah went to Suryapet to the house of Babu Rao, who is the husband of the accused own sister, to attend a function. The accused also attended the same function at the house of Babu Rao. The accused demanded PW.1 to pay Rs.30,000/-, for which he stated that he was not in a position to pay the same. On that the accused, his sister and his mother said that they would send his daughter, if he was unable to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/-. On 07.02.1999 at about 11:00 PM one Neerudu Narsimha of Rayapole village informed PWs.1 and 2 about the death of the deceased. Then they rushed to the village of the accused and as there was power failure, they could not see the deceased as the broken tiles of the roof were found on her body. On the next day morning at about 06:00 AM, the parents found burn injuries on the body of the deceased. PW.1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1, complaint, to PW.9. PW.9 took up investigation and gave requisition to Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct inquest. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and seized the incriminating material. He got the photographs of the scene of offence and dead body. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found 90% of superficial and deep burnt on the body, except on private parts. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to burn injuries. The accused was arrested on 23.02.1999 and later he was remanded to the Court. PW.11 took up further investigation and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. The charges levelled against the accused are as under: “FIRSTLY:- That you, on 07.02.1999 at about 08:30 PM caused the death of Jyothi within seven years of her marriage before her death by subjecting her to cruelty by you by demanding additional dowry and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the India Penal Code, and within my cognizance. SECONDLY:- That you, prior to 07.02.1999 demanded from the parents of Jyothi additional dowry consisting of Rs.30,000/- for job purpose and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and within my cognizance.” 4. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 beside case property MO.1. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. The trial Court upon consideration of evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4 found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against the accused? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry; that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, with regard to harassment is clearly an improvement; that therefore, the said improvement cannot be brushed aside lightly; that though PWs.1 and 2 and other relatives went to the scene of offence, they did not see the body of the deceased; that the explanation given by PWs.1 and 2 for the first time in the Court cannot be accepted for the reason that after due deliberations only, the present complaint was lodged; that the deceased has not informed them that she was subjected to harassment to bring additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-; that the accused only sent the deceased to bring Rs.30,000/- for securing a job; that therefore, it is not a case of dowry harassment; that these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court; that as the marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed against her will, she committed suicide and, hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the accused. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is a clear evidence which would go to show that the accused sent the deceased to her parents house to get Rs.30,000/-, which is an unlawful demand and that the improvements, if any, made by PWs.1 and 2 would not any manner affect the main substratum of the prosecution case; that the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4 would clearly go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, for unlawful demand; that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty and, hence, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. To prove the charge under Section 304-B IPC, the following conditions have to be established by the prosecution. 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; Fourthly: Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and Fifthly: Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. 12. The explanation reads that for the purpose of seeking dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Act. The dowry is defined under Section 2 of the Act, which reads as follows: “Definition of ‘dowry’ - In this Act, “dowry” 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; or b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.” 13. PW.8 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 08.02.1999 in the presence of PW.6 and issued Ex.P-5, inquest panchanama. The inquest officer unanimously opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. The recitals in Ex.P-5 and the cause of the death as spoken by PWs.6 and 8, remained unchallenged. 14. PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 09.02.1999 at 11:30 AM and found superficial and deep burns on the entire body, except on private parts. She opined that all the injuries are anti-mortem in nature and deceased died of shock due to 90% burn injuries. She issued Ex.P-8, post- mortem certificate. The cause of the death, as spoken to by PW.10 and recitals in Ex.P-8, remained unchallenged. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the death of the deceased is other than under normal circumstances. 15. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed on 30.05.1998 at the house of PWs.1 and 2. The deceased died on 07.02.1999, i.e., within one year after the marriage. The first two ingredients of Section 304-B IPC have been established by the prosecution beyond doubt. 16. Now coming to the third and fourth ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4 are irrelevant. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents, whereas PW.4 is the brother of PW.1. PWs.3 and 5, who were projected as independent witnesses to substantiate the case of the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. 17. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would go to show that at the time of marriage, they gave cash of Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused towards dowry and house hold articles and gold ornaments worth about Rs.40,000/-. For about two months, they lived happily at Nalgonda. Thereafter, the accused shifted his residence to his native place, Narayanpur, along with his wife. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that in the month of December, 1998 and January, 1999, deceased complained to him that the accused started saying that her complexion was black and she does not know any work and asked her to get Rs.30,000/- to secure a job. She also complained that the accused beat her with a belt and had shown the scar. On that reason, PWs.1 to 3 went to Narayanpur and requested the accused not to beat and ill-treat the deceased, and he also informed the accused that he does not have any money at that time and that he would arrange it after some time. He also stated that by selling the land, he paid the dowry. It is also stated by PW.1 that when he along with the deceased, PW.2 and one Yadaiah went to Suryapet to attend a function in the house of Babu Rao, the accused demanded for payment of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, as seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, three instances have been stated with regard to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. The first instance is that the deceased informed them in the month of December, 1998 and January, 1999, when she came to their house. The second instance is that when PWs.1,2 and 3 went to the house of the accused at Narayanpur, there was a demand by the accused to pay Rs.30,000/-. The third instance appears to have been allegedly taken place at the house of one Babu Rao. But Ex.P-1 - F.I.R. was lodged on the next date of the incident. F.I.R. in the criminal case is a valuable statement, which contain the earliest version. It can be compared with what is later testified in the Court. No doubt, the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to convict the accused, but at the same time, it can be used to corroborate the evidence under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 18. The recitals in Ex.P-1 would go to show that the marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed on 30.05.1998 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, household articles and gold ornaments worth Rs.40,000/- were given to the accused. They led the marital life happily for two months. Thereafter, the accused sent the deceased to the house of PWs.1 and 2 saying that he was in need of Rs.30,000/- to secure a Job. PW.1 advised him that he would give the same afterwards and sent his daughter to the house of the accused. There was no mention that he along with his wife and PW.3 went to the house of accused and at that time, the accused demanded him to pay Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, there was no allegation that the accused demanded Rs.30,000/- at the house of Babu Rao, when he went there to attend the function. Further more, these aspects of the case had not been stated to the police when he was examined under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The evidence of PW.1 that he along with Santhaiah went to the house of accused and requested him not to ill- treat the deceased was clearly an improvement because the said fact has not been stated to PW.9, when he was examined under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Similarly, PW.1 did not state to the police or in Ex.P- 1 that the accused beat the deceased with a belt and the deceased had shown the scar of belt injuries to him. 19. Similarly, PW.2 has not stated before the police that she along with her husband and Sathaiah went to the house of the accused and that these improvements made by PWs.1 and 2 would affect the main substratum of the prosecution case. If there was a cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and if the said harassment was soon before her death, then it would be an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. In view of the definition of the dowry under Section 2 of the Act, anything agreed to be given before the marriage or at the time of marriage and after the marriage for or in connection with the marriage is dowry. The alleged demand of dowry of Rs.30,000/- though not agreed to be paid before the marriage or at the time of marriage, but the demand was made after the marriage in connection with the marriage. So, it would attract Section 2(1) of the Act. According to the evidence of PW.1, the deceased was sent to the house of PWs. 1 and 2 asking her to get Rs.30,000/- to secure a job. If the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is to be accepted that the accused asking the deceased to get Rs.30,000/- to secure a job, it would amount to a unlawful demand. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision reported in Appasaheb and another V. State of Maharashtra[1], which reads as follows: “In view of the aforesaid definition of the word “dowry” any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well-known social custom or practice in India. It is well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India V. Garware Nylons Ltd. ((1996) 10 SCC 413 : AIR 1996 SC 3509) and Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. V. Union of India. ((1997) 2 SCC 664 : AIR 1997 SC 558)) A demand for 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. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for “dowry” as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.” 21. In the above case also the evidence is that the husband directed his wife to bring money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. In this case, also the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4 would clearly go to show that the accused asked the deceased to go to her parents house and bring Rs.30,000/- to secure a job. It is not a case of persistent demand or harassment by the accused to bring Rs.30,000/-. The marriage of the deceased with A1 was performed on 30.05.1998 and the incident has taken place on 07.02.1999. If really, there was a harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased, she would have informed the same immediately after the marriage to her parents. For the first time when the deceased visited her parents house in the month of December, 1998 or in the month of January, 1999, she informed that the accused was asking her to bring Rs.30,000/- for securing a job. So far about six months, there was no allegation of harassment or cruelty with regard to any unlawful demand. The earliest version would also go to show that there was no harassment with regard to bringing the amount of Rs.30,000/-. The earliest version as stated in Ex.P-1, would clearly go to show that the accused sent the deceased to the house of PW.1 by saying that he was in need of Rs.30,000/- towards his job. There was no allegation in the F.I.R. that for that reason the deceased was being harassed or treated cruelly. Therefore, even if the statements of PWs.1,2 and 4 is to be accepted that the accused sent the deceased to the parents house to bring Rs.30,000/- for securing the job, it cannot be said to be an unlawful demand or cannot be said to be an harassment. The demand should be made in connection with the marriage, but in this case, even according to the case of the prosecution, the direction to the deceased to bring the amount was only for the purpose of securing a job. Therefore, following the above Judgment, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC are liable to be set aside. 22. Coming to offence under Section 4 of the Act, giving or taking dowry is an offence. The evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4 is consistent with regard to receipt of dowry by the accused i.e., cash of Rs.1,10,000/- and other house hold articles worth about Rs.40,000/- towards dowry. Further, in the earliest version it is clearly stated that at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was given to the accused towards dowry. That recital is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1. Even, PW.3, who settled the marriage of the deceased with the accused has categorically stated that at the time of marriage, PW.1 gave cash of Rs.1,10,000/- and house hold articles worth Rs.40,000/- towards dowry to the accused. Though PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, but the law is well settled that when a witness turned hostile, his entire evidence would not be wiped out from the record. Such part of his testimony which inspires confidence can be taken for corroborating the other evidence if any, available on record. Therefore, though PW.3 was declared hostile, his evidence that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and house hold articles worth Rs.40,000/- were given to the accused at the time of marriage, can be used to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 4. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalognda, dated 13.07.2001, in S.C.No.708 of 1999 against the accused of the charge under Section 304-B IPC, but confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused of the charge under Section 4 of the Act. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J October 8, 2009 MD [1] (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468