THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1412 of 2007 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1963 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) Since both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case arise out of same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows: i) Anumalasetti Divya Manjari (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the wife of A.1-Anumalasetti Rajesh. A.2-Anumalasetti Syamala Devi is the mother and A.3-Anumalasetti Subbarao is the father of A.1. A.4-Gunupudi Sujatha is the married daughter of A.2 and A.3 and she is residing at I Town in Vijayawada. A.1 to A.3 are residing under the same roof at Museum road at Govenorpet, Vijayawada. P.W.1 is the elder brother and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.4 and Kurapati Durga Lakshmi are the daughters of P.W.2 and the younger sisters of P.W.1. ii) On 20.6.1999 the marriage of the deceased and A.1 held at T.T.D. Kalyana Mandapam in Vijayawada. At the time of their marriage, on the demand made by all the accused, Rs.3 lakh was paid to A.1 to A.3 as dowry and Rs.25,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam was also given to A.4 besides payment of Rs.5,000/- towards mother-in-law’s Lanchanam to A.2. Soon after the marriage, the deceased joined A.1 at his house to lead marital life and for a period of about one year, they both led their marital life properly. Thereafter, all the accused started harassing and ill-treating the deceased demanding her to bring the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh from her parental house. Even after the delivery of a female child, when the deceased was at her parental house, A.1 telephoned to her and asked her to come to his house along with the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh or otherwise she need not come to their house and he also torn away their marriage photos and burnt away her clothes and the said fact was informed to P.Ws.1 and 2 and their other family members by the deceased. On receiving the said telephone message, the deceased immediately went to the house of A.1 to A.3 where A.1 quarrelled with her and harassed and ill-treated her for not bringing the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. On that, the deceased became unconscious and fell down and as such, she was taken to the hospital where she was treated and thereafter she was brought to the house of her mother P.W.2. Even thereafter, all the accused were demanding her to bring the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. Thereafter, the deceased along with her female child was sent to the house of the accused and all the accused continued the harassment towards the deceased demanding her to bring the additional dowry. They were also not allowing the deceased to meet her brother, mother and sisters and A.1 was threatening her to give divorce, if she fails to bring the additional dowry. Unable to bear the said harassment and ill-treatment of all the accused, the deceased committed suicide in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3 at about 9.30 p.m. on 6.2.2002. iii) Basing on Ex.P.1 written report given by P.W.1 to Governorpet (L & O) P.S., on the same day, P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police, registered Crime No.84 of 2002 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued Express FIR in Ex.P.7. Thereafter, P.W.10, Inspector of Police, L & O South Circle, Vijayawada, took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, got drafted observation report in Ex.P.4, seized M.O.1 blood stained bed sheet and M.O.2 blood stained pillows, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body to the G.G.H., for post mortem examination where Dr.B.Raju, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.2 post mortem report opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of hanging. iv) Thereafter, L.W.11, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, took up further investigation and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the accused for the offence under Section 304-B r/w 34 of IPC before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate (re-designated as II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), Vijayawada, who numbered the same as P.R.C.No.6 of 2003 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as it is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Having received the case, the Sessions Judge numbered it as S.C.No.48 of 2004 and made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, for disposal, in accordance with law. v) Upon appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 apart from M.Os. 1 and 2. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.10 were marked. 4. P.W.1, brother of the deceased, deposed that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.2 lakh as dowry and Rs.25,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanam besides other presentations to the accused. Soon after the marriage, his sister joined A.1 to lead marital life. For about ten months, both the deceased and A.1 lived together properly. Thereafter, A.1, having addicted to illicit intimacy, started harassing the deceased and demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh and the said fact was informed by the deceased to him. They brought the deceased to their house for delivery and even after she gave birth to a female child, A.1 telephoned to the deceased stating that he would give divorce to her, if she does not bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. Immediately, the deceased rushed to the house of the accused stating that she would settle the issue with A.1 and, his sister P.W.4 and wife P.W.3 followed the deceased. Some time thereafter, P.W.4 informed over telephone that the deceased went inside the room of her husband and the door was bolted from inside and a galata was taken place between them and, after some time, the doors were opened and they found the deceased lying down in unconscious state. Thereafter, they requested the accused not to harass the deceased and they would adjust the additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. Inspite of the same, the accused again started ill-treating and demanding the deceased for additional dowry. While so, on 6.2.2002 at 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. he received information about the death of the deceased. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying down in the hall. He observed injuries on the hand, severe injury on the back of head of the deceased and injuries on her cheek. He also observed a mark around the neck which appears to be pressed with a wire. When he enquired, A.2 stated that the deceased died, due to electric shock. On the next day, he also observed injuries on her body during inquest held by the M.R.O. Then, he suspected that all the accused might have caused the death of the deceased by harassing and ill-treating her. Later, he went to III Town P.S., Vijayawada and lodged Ex.P.1 report. 5. According to P.W.2, the deceased is her second daughter. On 20.6.1999 the marriage between the deceased and A.1 was performed at T.T.D. Kalyanamandapam, Vijayawada. At the time of marriage, they presented Rs.2 lakh as dowry, Rs.25,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and Rs.5,000/- towards mother-in-law’s lanchanams besides three sovereigns of gold to the accused. For one year both the deceased and A.1 led marital life properly. Thereafter, A.1 to A.3 started harassing and ill-treating the deceased and demanding for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh and the same was informed to her by the deceased. One month after delivery of the deceased, A.1 telephoned to the deceased and informed her that she should come along with the dowry amount or otherwise he would tear away the marriage photos and burn her clothes and would give divorce to her. Immediately, the deceased rushed to the house of the accused. Some time thereafter, her daughter-in-law telephoned and stated that the deceased went into the room of A.1 and closed the doors and later the doors were opened and then they found the deceased lying down in unconscious state. On the next day morning, she went to the hospital and brought the deceased to their house. Thereafter, in the year 2002, A.2 informed them over phone about the death of the deceased. At about 11.00 p.m. her grand-son took her to the house of the accused where she found the deceased lying down in the varanda of the house, some marks around her neck and injuries on her legs and hands. When she enquired, the accused told them that the deceased died, due to electric shock. 6. In her evidence, P.W.3, wife of P.W.1, stated that on 20.6.1999 the marriage of the deceased with A.1 was performed at T.T.D.Kalyanamandapam, Vijayawada. At the time of marriage, they gave Rs.2 lakh towards dowry, Rs.25,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams and Rs.5,000/- towards mother-in-law’s lanchanam, besides presenting three sovereigns of gold to the accused. After marriage, both the deceased and A.1 led marital life properly for one year. A.1 has been feeling inferiority complex, as he is having black complexion and stout personality. The deceased, who was very close to her, used to inform about the same to her. One year after their marriage, A.1 was ill-treating and harassing the deceased to bring more dowry of Rs.5 lakh from her parents and the deceased used to inform her about the same. While so, on 6.2.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. her brother-in-law informed that the deceased died at the house of the accused. Then, herself and her husband went there and, when enquired, A.1 informed that the deceased hanged herself to death. She observed a severe injury on the back of the head of the deceased, finger marks on her cheek and pressing marks around her neck. She also found blood stains on the pillow and the bed sheet. They suspected that all the accused caused the death of the deceased. 7. P.W.4 deposed that the deceased is her elder sister. After marriage, both the deceased and A.1 led marital life properly for a period of one year and later the accused started harassing the deceased demanding for more dowry. On 6.2.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. she received a telephonic message from A.2 that the deceased was lying down in bathroom and asked them to come early. Immediately, she rushed there and found the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the varandh of the house of the accused. On enquiry, A.2 told her that the deceased hanged herself. Then, she went to the bathroom, but she observed nothing. She observed blood on the back of the head and pressing marks around the neck of the deceased. She suspected that all the accused might have caused the death of the deceased. 8. P.W.5, Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine, Siddhartha Medical College, deposed that he knows Dr. B. Raju and Ex.P.2 post mortem report in respect of the deceased contains the signature of Dr. B.Raju. As per the post mortem report, Dr. B.Raju conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1) Pressure abrasion (ligature mark) present near and above the thyroid cartilage on the neck, on front, it is transverse and on both sides of neck, it is passing obliquely upwards and it is measuring about 23 cm x 1.5 cm. 2) One split laceration present on the centre of occipital area measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. 3) Sclap contusion present on occipital area measuring 7 cm x 5 cm. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to hanging. 9. P.W.6, panch witness for Ex.P.4 scene of observation report, deposed that he observed the scene of offence and also the dead body of the deceased at the house of the accused. He found blackening injuries on the neck, hands and legs of the deceased and also a severe injury on the back of her neck. The Inspector of Police seized M.O.1 blood stained bed sheet and M.O.2 blood stained pillow in his presence and two others. On the same day, P.W.7, the M.R.O., came there and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and two others and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and other family members of the deceased and recorded their statements. Ex.P.5 inquest report was drafted and they attested it. They opined that the cause of death of the deceased might be due to the injuries received by her or due to pressing over her neck. 10. P.W.7 deposed with regard to the inquest conducted on the dead body of the deceased at the house of the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and two others and issuance of Ex.P.5 inquest report. 11. P.W.8 is the photographer who took photographs of scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.9 to 11 are the Investigating Officers. 12. In his evidence, D.W.1, accused No.1, stated that the deceased is his wife and, immediately after the marriage, she joined him and they led marital life and they used to write letters to each other. He further stated that the deceased used to suffer with mental depression and according to the request of his mother-in-law, he used to take his wife to Ravi Neuro Hospital. Whenever the deceased was in mental depression, she used to write something. Ex.D.9 papers appeared to be torn from a diary and they contain the writings of his wife. He further stated that on the date of incident, his mother telephoned to his shop at about 7.00 p.m. and told him that his wife had gone to bathroom and she was not responding, though she called his wife several times. Immediately, he rushed there and knocked the door of bathroom, even then she did not respond. So, he broke the bolt of the door and went inside the bathroom and found his wife hanging in the bathroom. He further stated that while he was getting down his wife onto the floor, due to weight, she fell down and thereby she sustained head injury. 13. After evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, convicted accused No.1, under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 IPC and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 306 IPC and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently, while acquitting A.2 to A.4 of the offences with which they were charged, vide judgment dated 09.10.2007, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004. While A.1 filed Crl.A.No.1412 of 2007 being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded against him, the defacto complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.1963 of 2007 against the order of acquittal of A.2 to A.4. Admittedly, no appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of A.2 to A.4. 14. We have heard the submissions of both sides and perused the entire record. 15. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A.1 mainly relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. It is needless to repeat the relationship between P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased. 16. P.W.1, K. Syam Prasad, who lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, categorically admits in his cross examination that he has not stated to the police or the M.R.O. as to the request made to the accused not to ill-treat the deceased and also not to demand her for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. He has also not stated in Ex.P.1 regarding the dowry given and also the demand of additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. 17. P.W.2, K. Raja Rajeswari, also in his cross examination stated that she has not remembered whether she has stated to the police or the M.R.O. regarding the harassment in connection with the demand of additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. The said witness denied the suggestion that she has not stated regarding the harassment and demand for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh by the appellant-accused No.1. Whereas, P.W.10, who recorded the statement of P.W.2, in his cross examination admits that P.W.2 did not state to him that the deceased informed her that she was being subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the appellant, that A.1 demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh, and that the deceased received a message from A.1 that A.1 asked her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakh. It clearly indicates that P.W.2 has improved her evidence to implicate the appellant for an offence under Section 304-B of IPC. 18. P.W.3, K.Vishala, denied the suggestion that she has not stated to police or the M.R.O. that A.1 was harassing the deceased demanding her to bring more dowry of Rs.5 lakh. Whereas, P.W.10, who recorded the statement of P.W.3, in cross examination admits that P.W.3 did not state before him about the demand of Rs.5 lakh by A.1 and that A.1 was harassing the deceased for additional dowry. 19. Further, in their evidence, P.Ws.1 to 4 nowhere stated that in which year there was a demand for additional dowry and harassment in connection with the said demand. 20. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the said evidence convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections, 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC. 21. Now, it is apt to refer to Sections 304-B and 306 of IPC which run as follows: “Section 304-B of IPC: (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in s.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Section 306 of IPC:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 22. We are of the view that charge sheet can be filed for alternative offences and trial can also proceed for alternative charges, but it is the duty of the Court, while deciding the issue, to convict the accused, if he is found guilty for anyone of the offences charged, more particularly, in the present case when the offence is charged for 304-B and 306 of IPC. 23. The learned Sessions Judge, on the same set of evidence, convicted the appellant for both the offences. Section 304-B of IPC enables the Court, under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, to presume that the accused is guilty of the offence, when the deceased died in suspicious circumstances within seven years from the date of marriage. As per Section 306 of IPC, there should be a specific allegation that due to inducement and aid, the deceased committed suicide. But, the learned Sessions Judge on the same set of evidence convicted the appellant as stated supra. 24. In the present case, apart from the improvement, embellishment and contradiction in the material aspects, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that the deceased was in a mental depression condition and, even in an earlier occasion, she went inside the room of her husband and bolted the room from inside and then a galata took place between her and her husband appellant and later she was found lying down in unconscious state, she was also treated by a doctor, and the doctor also advised that she could not be put to any tension and she should be treated properly. The said fact was supported by the evidence of the appellant, who examined himself as D.W.1, that after the demise of her father, the deceased was suffering with mental depression. 25. Further, as per the evidence of the doctor P.W.5, it is a case of suicide and he has given his opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to hanging, which supports the version of the appellant that on the date of the incident, his mother telephoned to his shop at about 7.00 p.m. and told him that the deceased went into the bathroom and she was not responding though she called his wife several times and, on that, he immediately rushed to home and broke the bolt of the door and went inside the bathroom and found the deceased hanging in the bathroom. 26. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the deceased committed suicide in the house of the accused. But, in the absence of any evidence to show that prior to her death, she was subjected to harassment in connection with additional dowry, there cannot be any conviction for the offences under Sections, 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1 for the said offences are liable to be set aside. 27. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused No.1, for the offences under Sections, 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004, by judgment dated 09.10.2007, are hereby set aside and, consequently, the appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted of the said offences. The appellant-accused No.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be returned to him. 28. The reasoning given above is also applicable to the Criminal Revision Case and absolutely there is no whisper by the witnesses regarding the involvement or ill-treatment by the respondents in the Criminal Revision Case. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 30th August, 2011. cbs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1412 of 2007 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1963 of 2007 Dated :30.08.2011 Crl.A.No.1412 of 2007 Between : Anumalasetti Rajesh …. Appellant-A.1 a n d The State of A.P. … Respondent AND Crl.R.C.No.1963 of 2007 Between : K. Syam Prasad …. Petitioner/Defacto complainant a n d Anumalasetti Syamala Devi and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1412 of 2007 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1963 of 2007 30th August, 2011 cbs