THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1412 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is at the instance of the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal, in S.C.No.537 of 2002 on 10-09-2003. The respondents herein who are A-1 to A-9 were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304-B of I.P.C. alleging that the deceased Thumunuri Kavitha was given in marriage to A-1 on 02- 05-1997 and at the time of marriage PW-1 gave Rs.6,00,000/- dowry as demanded by the accused. The deceased lived with A-1 happily for one year and thereafter A-1 to A-9 started harassing her demanding to get Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. The deceased used to inform the same to her parents. Upon which PWs.1, 2 and 4 visited the house of A-1 several times and requested all the accused not to harass the deceased for additional dowry promising that they will make the payment of said amount as early as possible. But A-1 to A-9 did not stop their attitude towards the deceased and last year she gave birth to a male child. Later again the accused started harassing her to get additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Twenty days prior to the incident PW-1 underwent eye operation at Hyderabad and the deceased has requested her husband and in- laws to allow her to go to Hyderabad to see her father but they did not agree for the request and stated that unless and until the additional dowry amount is paid they will not allow her to go to her native place. Thereby the deceased vexed with the attitude of the accused and decided to put an end to her life and committed suicide by hanging on the night of 11-10-2001. On receipt of the information about the admission of the deceased in the MGM Hospital, Warangal, PWs.1, 2 and others gone to MGM Hospital. Thereafter PW-1 lodged a complaint and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.237 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. PWs.11 and 12 after conducting the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of the accused no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D-1 was marked on their behalf. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges and thereby acquitted all the accused. Questioning the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. On behalf of the prosecution Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is sufficient to establish the demand for additional dowry and harassment caused by the accused to the deceased and the prosecution could able to establish the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage and she died under suspicious circumstances i.e., by hanging. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Section 304-B of IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further pleaded that from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 the prosecution would able to establish about the payment of dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- at the time of marriage and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- subsequent to the marriage at the instance of the accused, thereby they could able to establish the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In order to establish charge under Section 304-B of IPC the prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased was occurred under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. In the present case there is no dispute about the death of the deceased by hanging on 11-10-2001 and as the marriage of the deceased with A-1 took place on 02-05-1997, she died within seven years of her marriage. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could bale to establish that the deceased harassed by the accused/or treated her with cruelty soon before her death in connection with demand for additional dowry. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that after marriage the deceased and A-1 lived happily for one year. Thereafter all the accused demanded for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry and started harassing the deceased and in spite of promising the payment of additional dowry by PWs.1 and 2 in the presence of PW-4 the accused did not stop the harassment and continued the same and did not allow her to go to her parents house to see her father who underwent eye operation and thereby vexed with the attitude of the accused, she committed suicide. PW-1 is the father of the deceased and according to him one year after marriage the parents of A-1 and all the other accused started harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the deceased informed him about the said demand on phone. Then himself, his wife and one Sadanandam (PW-4) went to the house of accused and requested them not to harass the deceased and requested for some more time for payment of amount. After they returned to their house the accused again harassed the deceased. In the year 1999 the deceased gave birth to a male child and accused sent his daughter to his house to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and he gave Rs.1,00,000/- and informed them that he would pay the balance amount later but the accused continued the harassment and the same was informed by the deceased on phone. According to him the accused did not allow his daughter to come to their house to see him when he underwent eye operation and his daughter informed him that the accused are not allowing her to go to their house unless they pay balance amount as demanded by the accused. On 12-10-2011 at about 3.00 p.m. the son-in-law of A-2 came to their house in a car and informed them about the deceased committing suicide and took them to MGM Hospital, Warangal, and by that time their daughter was already dead and thereafter PW-1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P-1 with police. Therefore, according to him he came to know about the harassment of the deceased for additional dowry only through phone and also the accused have sent her to their house after delivery for getting the additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and he made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within a short time. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased and she supported the version of PW-1 with regard to the demand for additional dowry and harassment caused to the deceased. PW-3 who is the sister of the deceased has stated that A-1 and deceased lead happy marital life for one year and thereafter accused started harassing the deceased for bringing the dowry and the deceased used to inform them about the harassment caused to her by the accused whenever she come to their house. PWs.1, 2 and 4 went to the house of accused and requested time for payment of said amount and she also stated that after delivery the accused sent the deceased to their house to bring additional dowry and at that time also the deceased informed them about the demand made by the accused and PW-1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased and sent her to their in-laws house. With regard to PWs.1 and 2 going to the house of accused Sadanandam (PW-4) admitted that himself and PW-1 went to the house of accused and requested time for making payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and later he was informed by PW-1 that he sent Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused through the deceased. In the cross- examination he stated that he do not know what has taken place between the deceased and accused within two years. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish only about PWs.1, 2 and 4 going to the house of accused and requesting time for payment of additional dowry as demanded by the accused. More over, the case of the prosecution is that the harassment caused by the accused was informed to them through telephone. Admittedly, there is no telephone in the house of accused or in the house of PW-1. According to PW-1, the deceased used to make a call from the shop of Balraj and he used to receive the telephone calls from his neighbours shop. More over, he received the said telephone call in the month of January, 2000. PW-1 also admitted that the deceased gave birth to a male child in the month of December, 1999 and after giving birth to a male child they took the deceased and the child to their house at Kamalapur and they performed cradle ceremony three months after the birth of the child at their house and the deceased was in their house in those days. The accused and his parents took the deceased and child to their house at Warangal and two months thereafter again the accused started demanding to get additional dowry. According to the prosecution, even prior to giving birth to a child there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- by the accused. But when she gave birth in the year 1999 December the accused went to the house of PW-1 and took the deceased and child along with them without making any demand for additional dowry. Therefore, story of the prosecution that subsequently the accused sent the deceased and her son to her parents house demanding to get additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be believed. More over, except the vague allegation of harassing the deceased in connection with payment of additional dowry no specific overt acts are attributed to any of the accused. As envisaged by PW-1, the parents of A-1 are well do people than that of PW-1 and there is no necessity for them for demand of additional dowry. Even though PW-1 has stated that when her daughter was sent back to their house he sent her to the house of accused by selling his plot and paying Rs.1,00,000/-but he could not able to say the name of the purchaser of the said plot. Therefore, he could not able to establish about payment of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the alleged demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. From the above, the prosecution could not establish the harassment or cruelty of the accused towards the deceased in connection with demand for additional dowry. Thus, the prosecution could not be able to establish the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. With regard to the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution could not able to establish about the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- at the time of marriage and as there is no evidence with regard to demand for additional dowry. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the charges for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus the lower Court has rightly found the accused not guilty for the above said charges and acquitted them and the said findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J September 22, 2011 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1412 OF 2004 September 22, 2011 PN