IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1462 of 2005 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Dole Nadvanti and 4 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Adilabad, by the judgment dated 09-08-2004 led the State to prefer the present appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. The factual background for the appeal is that the accused 1 to 4 were prosecuted by the Sub. Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad, in Cr.No.14 of 2002 of Bela Police Station, alleging that the deceased Suneetha was married to the fourth accused on 16- 04-2001 prior to which the dowry of Rs.31,000/-was kept in fixed deposit in the name of fourth accused in Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank by the parents of Suneetha. At the time of marriage, an Air Cooler and a black and white T.V. and gold worth Rs.20,000/- were also given and for sometime the couple lived happily. Thereafter, the husband, his parents and sister started harassing Suneetha to bring additional dowry and also a share in the property of her father, who had no sons and the deceased informed the same to her parents and due to the continued harassment physically and mentally, the deceased Suneetha was found to be struggling for life after consuming pesticide poison in the agricultural land on 29- 03-2002. On her death, the accused absconded and the police filed the charge sheet after investigation alleging the accused to have committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused on their appearance and committed the case to the Court of Session. The Court of Session framed a charge under Section 304-B IPC against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment, firstly noting that the deceased Suneetha married on 16-04-2001 and died on 29-03-2002 within one year after her marriage after consuming pesticide and therefore, it has to be seen whether her death which was otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage was due to any cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry. Examining whether there was any demand for dowry, the trial Court, firstly noted that the deceased and the accused 1 to 4 were living under the same roof, but PW.1 stated only about the accused demanding the deceased to get share in the land and house as well as cash of her father. The trial Court further referred to the evidence of PW.1 in detail about various events connected with such a demand and it was further observed that PW.2, the mother, also spoke only against accused 1 to 3 and that too about their finding fault with the deceased for not cooking the food properly and for not cleaning the vessels and for not attending to the household work. Her further reference to any demand was also in respect of a share in the land and other properties and she was also noted by the trial Court to have made no reference to any demand for dowry, while the other reasons for harassment did not find place in the earlier statements of PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 was noted to have been informed by PW.1 about the quarrels with her husband and PW.3 was stated to have not referred to any reasons for alleged quarrels. PW.4 was noted to have had no personal knowledge about any ill-treatment and PW.7 also did not speak about any alleged demand for additional dowry. Similar was the evidence of PW.8, who referred only to the quarrels being for the sake of a share in the properties. PW.10, who claimed to be the elder who settled the alliance, was noted to have claimed that the accused 1 to 4 were quarrelling with the deceased to get money from her father, which was not the claim of PWs.1 and 2. The trial Court, therefore, concluded that there was no proof of any demand to get additional dowry after the marriage or any consequential harassment for the same and opined that any demand for getting her share in the properties of PW.1 cannot be brought within the purview of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, holding that the death of Suneetha was not a dowry death, the trial Court acquitted all the four accused. The grounds of appeal plead that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the parents, was rejected without any convincing and valid reasons and when the accused harassed the deceased and forcibly administered the pesticide poison to her causing her death, they ought to have been convicted and severely sentenced, more so, in view of the evidence of independent witnesses. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the respondents-accused are heard. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 for any offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt? The death of Suneetha due to consumption of pesticide poison within one year after her marriage is admitted and there was no allegation till the conclusion of trial about Suneetha being administered with such pesticide poison forcibly as contended in the grounds of appeal. While any events relating to any dowry or presents prior to or at the time of marriage are irrelevant for the purposes of the present consideration, in view of the admitted abnormal and unnatural death of Suneetha within one year of her marriage, the only question that remains for determination is about any harassment or cruelty for or in connection with any demand for dowry. While it was not even the case of the prosecution that there was any harassment for or in connection with dowry till much later to the marriage with the couple living happily together in the meanwhile, any demand by the accused to the deceased Suneetha to get her share of properties or money from her father may not be capable of being construed as a demand for dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which alone is relevant for the purpose of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in view of the explanation thereunder. While the evidence relating to the death of Suneetha and subsequent investigation by the police on the other aspects is not quite material for determination of the alleged guilt of the accused, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 itself may suggest that the ill-treatment, if it were true, could have only been for the failure of Suneetha to get her share in the properties of her father or for not attending to the domestic matters to the satisfaction of the accused but not in connection with any demand for dowry. In view of such fact, the trial Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong in concluding that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt of any dowry death as defined under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Any statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, also cannot be availed as such presumption will only arise on proof that soon before the death of a woman, she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. In the absence of proof of any demand for dowry by the evidence on record, the acquittal of the accused has to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-12-2009 Ksn