THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1273 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.116 of 1999 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur. The respondents herein were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 IPC alleging that the deceased Sukanya was given in marriage to accused No.1 and their marriage was performed on 11.05.1997 at Kadiri. P.W.1 father of the deceased gave gold and cash at the time of marriage and he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from one Kadiri Reddy, grandfather of accused No.1 towards marriage expenses. P.W.1 promised to give dowry of Rs.30,000/- after the marriage, apart from the gold given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the deceased and accused No.1 lived happily for 3 or 4 months and thereafter accused No.1 and accused No.7 began to harass the deceased to get the dowry of Rs.30,000/- or gold from her father. It is also further alleged that accused No.1 intended to marry Suguna, the daughter of accused No.3. Accused No.1 used to harass the deceased and beat her and caused injuries on her body, demanding her to get the dowry amount from her father or she should not live with him. Being vexed with the harassment caused by the accused, she informed the same to Lalithamma, sister-in- law and shown the injuries caused by the accused and the said Lalithamma informed the same to her mother-in-law, P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Dasarivandlapalli and requested accused No.7 not to harass his daughter and also asked her to advice her son not to beat his daughter. Accused No.3 is having a daughter by name Suguna and he wanted to give his daughter to accused No.1 in marriage and with the said intention accused Nos.1 and 3 planned to get rid of the deceased once for all. The other accused, who are the close friends and associates of accused Nos.1 and 3 assisted accused Nos.1, 3 and 7. Usually, accused No.1 used to sleep in the upstairs along with his wife, while his mother accused No.7 and grandmother used to sleep in the ground floor during nights. On 11.11.1997 night as usual accused No.1 and deceased went to the upstairs in the night while accused No.7 sleeping in the ground floor. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 7 all planned to murder Sukanya on the night of 11.11.1997 without causing any external or internal injuries and to throw the dead body in a well to show that she committed suicide by falling in the well. In pursuance of their common intention all the accused have executed their plan on the night of 11.11.1997and thereafter accused No.1 and other accused left the village. One Vadde Pullappa, P.W.4 went to the house of accused No.1 at about 9.00 A.M on 12.11.1997 and went to the upstairs and could not find accused No.1 and the deceased in the upstairs. Immediately, accused No.7 sent word to P.W.1 about the disappearance of the deceased from the house. On coming to know the same, P.W.1 and others came to Yadalavandlapalli and enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and he found huge crowd near the tamarind tree on the outskirts of the village at Malavandal Bavi and went there and found the dead body of deceased Sukanya, which was removed from the well. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint. The Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.63 of 1997 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to Homicidal drowning. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC against all the accused and they pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.11 were marked. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution has not proved the charges under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC and thereby acquitted the accused. Questioning the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the death of the deceased Sukanya otherwise than under normal circumstances was established by the prosecution and the prosecution has also established that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased was harassed by the accused for non payment of dowry amount of Rs.30,000/- agreed to be paid by her father at the time of marriage. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 304-B IPC. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. According to the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed on 11.05.1997 and at the time of marriage P.W.1 gave gold ornaments and promised to give Rs.30,000/- as dowry after harvesting the crop and as he failed to fulfill his promise of payment of Rs.30,000/- to the accused, and accused No.1 and accused No.7, who is the mother of accused No.1, started harassing the deceased and whenever deceased goes to her parents’ house, she used to inform the same to them, but they have not fulfilled their promise of payment of Rs.30,000/- to the accused and the accused No.3 wants to give his daughter to accused No.1 in marriage by getting rid of the deceased and thereby all the accused hatched a plan to do away with the deceased. In pursuance of their plan, they killed the deceased 11.11.1997 while she was sleeping in the upstairs portion of the house of the accused and thrown the dead body in the well Malavandla Bavi. In order to establish the charge under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances and prior to her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry. In the present case, admittedly there is no dispute with the regard to the death of the deceased within 7 years of marriage. According to P.W.Nos.4 and 5 the dead body of the deceased was removed from the well called Malavandlabavi. As per the evidence of Doctor, who conducted autopsy i.e. P.W.11 the deceased died due to asphyxia due to drowning. Subsequent to the post mortem conducted by P.W.11, the dead body was handover to P.W.1 and they cremated the dead body. Subsequently, the dead body was exhumed in the presence of P.W.10 M.R.O again and P.W.14 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he gave opinion that the deceased appears to have died of homicidal drowning. But the said finding of P.W.14 with regard to homicidal drowning could not be established by the prosecution. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.14 with regard to said finding cannot be relied upon since he is not expected to examine the scene of offence to give his finding. Therefore, the prosecution could not able to establish the homicidal drowning of the deceased, but only could able to establish the death of the deceased due to drowning in the well. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the death of the deceased was occurred in un-natural circumstances. With regard to the harassment caused to the deceased prior to her death in connection with demand for dowry, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the mother the of deceased and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. According to P.W.1, he promised to give Rs.30,000/- after harvest to accused No.1 towards dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, accused No.1 and deceased lived happily for about one and half months. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 7 harassed the deceased to get either gold or money. After about one and half months thereafter, the deceased came to their house and told him about the demand made by accused Nos.1 and 7. Then he told the deceased that he would pay the amount as demanded after getting the crops from the fields and send her to the house of accused No.1. Again after one month, she came from the house of accused NO.1 and told him that he should play the money or else accused No.1 would marry another lady and also informed that accused No.1 threatened her that she should either die or leave him and P.W.1 promised to make the payment in the month of January, 1998. Again thereafter, the deceased came to his house and informed about the harassment meted out to her in the hands of the accused and again he sent the deceased to accused No.1’s house telling her that he would pay the amount soon. As the maternal grandfather of accused No.1 died, himself and P.W.2 went to accused No.1’s house to attend obsequies. On the next day, they returned back to their house. On 12.11.1997 one Vodde Pullappa of Yadalavandlapalli village came to his village and informed him about the missing of his daughter. Then they have gone to the village and enquired about the matter and found the dead body under the tamarind tree near Malavandla Bhavi. In the cross-examination, he stated that there are no mediators for the marriage of his deceased daughter. He denied about his not mentioning in Ex.P.1 or in his statement about the giving of dowry and also about the agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards dowry subsequent to the marriage . He also denied about his not mentioning in Ex.P.1 or in his statement given to the M.R.O at the time of inquest about the deceased coming to their house and informing them about the harassment caused by accused No.1 and also requested to make payment as promised. Ex.P.1 is the complaint given by P.W.1, wherein he has mentioned that he has presented chain and ring to his son-in-law, still he demanded Rs.30,000/- as dowry and harassed the deceased. Therefore, Ex.P.1 complaint does not disclose about his promise to make the payment of Rs.30,000/- as dowry after the marriage, but he only mentioned about the demand made by the accused for Rs.30,000/-. The investigating officer P.W.12, who recorded the statement of P.W.1, has stated in the cross-examination that P.W.1 has not stated before him about his giving dowry and promising to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards dowry subsequent to the marriage and also deceased coming to his house and informing him about the harassment caused by accused No.1 and also requesting to pay the promised dowry amount. The Mandal Revenue Officer P.W.10, who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, has recorded the statement of P.W.1 at the time of inquest and the same is marked as Ex.P.2. In the cross-examination, he admitted that P.W.1 has not stated to him in Ex.P.2 about his giving dowry and about his agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- subsequent to the marriage and about the deceased going to her parents’ house at Dasaravanapalli and informing them about the harassment caused by the accused and asking him to pay cash or dowry as promised. P.W.2 mother of the deceased also supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to their agreeing to make payment of Rs.30,000/- towards dowry after the marriage and about the harassment caused by the accused in connection with the payment of the said amount. According to the investigating officer P.W.12, she also not stated before him in the statements recorded by him about their promising to make payment of Rs.30,000/- or deceased coming to their house and informing them about the demand made by the accused and harassment caused to her. P.W.10 Mandal Revenue Officer, also admitted in the cross-examination that P.W.2 has not stated before him in the statement Ex.P.3 about the alleged promise to make payment of Rs.30,000/-. The other witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased. According to him, he used to go to the house of accused whenever he go to Yadalavandlapalli, since he has married the daughter of Prabhakara Reddy of Yadalavandlapallil. At that time, his sister used to tell him to give Rs.30,000/- to accused No.1 as promised by their father at the time of her marriage. He also stated that his sister showing the injuries caused by the accused on the face with a blade and also stated about the intention of accused No.1 to marry the daughter of accused No.3. P.W.3 used to tell his parents about the harassment meted out to his sister and also told his parents to give the necklace of his wife and pacify accused No.1’s demand. But the said factum of his sister asking him to pay Rs.30,000/- to accused No.1 and he in turn informed the same to his parents, was not spoken either by P.W.1 or P.W.2. The Investigating Officer P.W.13, who recorded the statement of P.W.3, in his cross-examination has stated that P.W.3 did not state before him about his sister asking them to give Rs.30,000/- as dowry which was promised at the time of marriage and also about the harassment caused by the accused and about his sister showing them cutting injuries caused by accused No.1 with blade and accused No.1 doing so with an intention to marry the daughter of accused No.3. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge there are number of omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to their promising to pay Rs.30,000/- towards dowry at the time of marriage and also with regard to the deceased coming to their house and informing them about the harassment caused by the accused. Except the above interested evidence of P.W.Nos.1 to 3, there is no other evidence to establish the said demand made by the accused and harassment caused by them in connection with the said demand. Thus, the prosecution could not able to establish the harassment caused by accused Nos.1 to 3 to deceased in connection with demand for payment of Rs.30,000/-. With regard to the role played by accused Nos.2 to 6 in the commission of offence, except alleging in the charge sheet that accused Nos.2 to 6 has assisted accused No.1 in causing the death of the deceased, no evidence was produced before the Court to establish the same and it is not the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 to 6 also harassed the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. Therefore, no material was placed before the Court to establish any of the charges framed against accused Nos.2 to 6. With regard to accused Nos.1 and 7 also there is no evidence to show that accused No.7 harassed the deceased. With regard to the harassment caused by accused No.1, as already observed above the prosecution could not able to establish about the promise made by P.W.1 to make payment of Rs.30,000/- after the marriage and as he failed to make the payment of the said amount, the deceased was harassed by accused No.1. Therefore, the prosecution could not able to establish the charges under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC against the accused. The lower Court has rightly acquitted all the accused for the above said charges and the said finding of the lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 16th September, 2011 Ksp