HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.683 of 2000 AND TR.CRIMINAL APPEL No.856 of 2004 DATE:19.03.2010 Crl.R.C.No.683 of 2000: Between: Pabba Bixamaiah … Petitioner/ Defacto complainant and Parepalli Janakiramulu and others … Respondents Tr.Crl.A.No.856 of 2004: Between: Parepally Kashinadham … Petitioner/A.1 and The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.683 of 2000 AND TR.CRIMINAL APPEL No.856 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: The defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in S.C.No.264 of 1997 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, is the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.683 of 2000 and Accused No.1 in the said Sessions Case is the appellant in Transfer Criminal Appeal No.856 of 2004. 2. Accused No.1 along with two others was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, in S.C.No.264 of 1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, found A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the offences, and accordingly, acquitted them of the offences, but found A.1 guilty of the offences, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, by judgment dated 18.02.2000. As against the said judgment, while accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.28 of 2000 on the file of the Principal sessions Judge at Nalgonda, the defacto complainant, P.W.1, filed Crl.R.C.No.683 of 2000 on the file of this Court. Since both the cases arise out of one and same judgment passed by the trial court, as per the orders of this Court dated 23.07.2002, the criminal appeal filed by A.1 was withdrawn from the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Nalgonda and transferred to this Court, and on such transfer, it was numbered as Tr.Crl.A.No.856 of 2004, and both the cases are disposed of together by this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between accused No.1 and one Manjula, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, was performed on 02.06.1995 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, P.W.1-defacto complainant, father of the deceased, gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards pasupu kumkuma, Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, and other customary gifts, to accused No.2- father of A.1. After the marriage, at the request of A.1, P.W.1 gave Rs.7,500/- towards expenses for honeymoon. Having stayed there for about 15 days, A.1 and the deceased came back to Miryalaguda. Subsequently, A.1 and his parents, A.2 and A.3, and the deceased attended the cradle ceremony of the child of sister of the deceased and after completion of the ceremony, A.1 left for Miryalaguda while the deceased stayed there. At that time, she told her parents that A.1 was asking to provide funds for starting business or for getting a job. A.3 also enquired the deceased about Rs.5,000/- given to her towarda Adabidda Katnam at the time of marriage of brother of the deceased with interest. The deceased also informed her father P.W.1 that A.1 was asking her to bring money to purchase a Maruthi Car in a scheme in which he joined. Thereafter, A.1 came and took back the deceased to Miryalaguda. On 18.09.1995 A.1 informed P.W.1 over telephone that the deceased was ill. In a span of ten minutes thereafter, he again telephoned P.W.1 and informed that the deceased fell from cot and she went into Coma. Immediately, P.W.1 and his wife-P.W.2, went to Miryalaguda and found the deceased lying dead on a cot. When enquired, the accused told them that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.14 registered Crime No.119 of 1995 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304- B and 498-A IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-A.1 that registration of crime and recording of statements of witnesses are solely on the basis of suspicion and there is no truth in the case of the prosecution. According to him, simply because the married woman committed suicide within a span of four months and the said death was unnatural, a false case has been foisted against A.1. The marriage between the deceased and A.1 took place on 2.6.1995 and the said unnatural death happened on 18.9.1995 and during the said period, A.1 and the deceased lived only for a period of 18 days. Therefore, it is highly improbable to believe that the deceased committed suicide solely on account of the harassment caused by her husband for dowry. It is his further contention that in the original report or in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, nothing has been stated, but it is only during the course of evidence, so many facts have come out and the same are nothing but impossible and the court below ought not to have taken the said exaggerated versions into consideration in holding that A.1 is guilty of the said offences. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on a decision in Benga Behera and another Vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others[1]and also in Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana[2]. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said contentions stating that there is no need for a woman to take the extreme step of committing suicide within a span of four months from the date of marriage and that itself amply prove that the said unnatural death was not on account of anything other than the harassment meted out by her. According to him, in this case, the presumption automatically comes into existence and it shall be presumed that the said unnatural death is solely on account of the harassment meted out by her and the court below has rightly concluded that A.1 is guilty of the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. 6. To bring home the guilt of an accused person for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution shall establish the following three ingredients: 1) Death is unnatural 2) Said death had occurred within a span of seven years 3) Soon before the said death, there was harassment for dowry. 7. When these three requirements are satisfied, automatically, the presumption provided for under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn and the court can presume that the said unnatural death is on account of the harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of her husband or her in-laws. In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the two requirements i.e. death was unnatural and the same happened within a span of seven years. 8. So far as the third requirement is concerned, i.e. soon before the death of the deceased there was harassment for dowry, it is necessary to go through the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In the first information report lodged by the father of the deceased i.e. P.W.1, it is not stated in so many words about the alleged harassment. Of course, in the last paragraph, it is stated that when the deceased came to their house, she stated that her husband-A.1 and parents-in-law-A.2 and A.3 are demanding money towards additional dowry. To establish the same, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1, mother of the deceased i.e. P.W.2, a neighbour to the house of the accused who was examined as P.W.3, and the sister of the deceased who was examined as P.W.4. Out of them, for obvious reasons, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, and as such, she was declared hostile. Then, there remains the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. If the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 is accepted, it can definitely be said that A.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. But, this Court shall look into the aspect of their interestedness in giving evidence. 9. Evidently, the marriage between the deceased and A.1 was performed on 2.6.1995 and her death had taken place on 18.9.1995 i.e. within a span of four months. It is nothing but natural for parents to suspect that the said unnatural death was on account of the harassment meted out by their daughter at the hands of her husband and in- laws. In my considered view, apart from the evidence of the parents of the deceased, there must be some other unimpeachable evidence to come to the conclusion that the said unnatural death was solely on account of dowry harassment. As stated supra, as and when there is unnatural death, there is every possibility for the close relatives of the deceased to suspect that the said death is on account of the dowry harassment and that is the reason why the courts are duty bound to weigh the said evidence with any amount of caution. Keeping the same in mind, having looked into the evidence of P.Ws.1 2 and 4, this Court is of the view that the said evidence is solely on account of suspicion but nothing else. If really it is a fact that there was harassment for additional dowry etc., at the first instance itself, they would have come forward stating that the said unnatural death was on account of the harassment. In the FIR, except a bald allegation that during one of the visits of the deceased, she informed P.W.1 that her husband-A.1 and her in-laws-A.2 and A.3 are demanding money towards dowry. 10. It is necessary to look into the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. In fact, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 during the course of trial has to be discarded, in view of the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.15. P.W.15 the Inspector of Police, who took up investigation on 19.9.1995. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that the facts mentioned in the remand report are on the basis of the information he received, but not on the basis of the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Further, he has stated the said facts, as recorded in the gist of statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, were not figured so in the statements recorded by the Sub Inspector who was examined as P.W.14. He further stated that the remand report does not contain the demand alleged to have been made by the accused for adabaduchu Katnam and also the demand for additional dowry to get a job or to start business and to purchase a Maruthi car. 11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Ex.P.1 report is solely on the account of suspicion that the deceased might have committed suicide because of dowry harassment. No doubt, as stated supra, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 have spoken in so many words about the alleged harassment for dowry, but the same can definitely be said to be subsequent developments. 12. The case of the defence throughout is that the deceased committed suicide for the reason that she is not willing for the marriage with A.1 and she wanted to marry a doctor or an officer, but much against to her will, her marriage was performed with A.1, and hence, she has taken the extreme step of committing suicide. 13. In the light of the above discussion, in my considered view, A.1 is entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the court below are liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Appeal No.856 of 2004 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against A.1 by the court below in S.C.No.264 of 1997 by judgment dated 18.02.2000, are hereby set aside and A.1 is acquitted of the charges leveled against him, and the fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded. The Criminal Revision Case No.683 of 2000 is dismissed. ______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 19th March, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.683 of 2000 AND TR.CRIMINAL APPEL No.856 of 2004 (Dismissed & Allowed ) Date:19-03-2010 CBS [1] (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 728 [2] 2009 (6) Scale Page 555