THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1809 OF 2004 Dated 15-7-2010 Between: Nuthalapti Umamaheswararao. ..Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1809 of 2004 Judgment: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2003 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, in partly allowing the appeal and confirming the conviction order passed against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Sessions Case No. 243 of 2002, dated 05.08.2003. However, the sentence was modified and the petitioner was directed to suffer R.I for two years instead of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer SI for three months. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is A1 before the trial Court. A2 is the second wife of A1. The specific charge against the petitioner is that he had harassed his wife Nuthalapati Rajani Kumari (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and subjected her to cruelty by beating her and ill-treating her and as a result of which the deceased committed suicide on 25.11.2000 between 4.00 and 6.00 PM at the house of A1. It is also alleged that 5 years prior to the death of the deceased, the accused, during the subsistence of marriage with the deceased, married A2 and thus had committed the offence under Section 494 IPC. We are not concerned with A2 in this revision petition. The accused was working as Lab Technician. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. They performed the marriage of the deceased with A1 on 04.01.1991. The deceased studied up to Degree. According to PW.1, at the time of marriage they gave Rs.30,000/- dowry to A1 and four sovereigns of gold to their daughter. After the marriage, the deceased and A1 lead happy marital life for about two years. They set up their family at Sullurpet, Nellore District. They were living with the parents and sister of A1 at Sullurpet. Her further case is that in the year 1993 A1 sent the deceased to their house demanding money for setting up a separate clinic for himself. The deceased begot a male child in 1992. The deceased visited the house of PW.1 and informed the demand made by A1. Then PW.1 and her husband informed their financial position and sent the deceased back without giving any money. Then A1 started harassing the deceased and again sent her to her parents demanding money. According to PW.1, then they handed over a sum of Rs.10,000/- to their deceased daughter, in turn she handed over the said amount to A1. A1 had set up a separate Laboratory at Sullurpet. Subsequently, A2 joined in the Laboratory of A1. A1 addicted to vices and in 1994 the deceased again became pregnant, then she was brought to her parents house for second delivery. Then illicit intimacy developed between A1 and A2. The deceased, after second delivery, remained in the house of her parents for four months and then went to Sullurpet. The deceased noticed that A1 and A2 were living together in their house and the deceased intimated the said fact to PW.1. Then PW.1 and her husband went to Sullurpet and questioned A1 and his sister about the affair of A1 with A2. Then A1 assured that he will look after the deceased well and PW.1 and her husband returned to their village. The deceased was remained with her children with A1 at Sullurpet. Again in 1995 A1 had sent back the deceased to her parents house to bring some furniture. Then, according to PW.1, they purchased TV and some other articles and sent the same along with the deceased to Sullurpet. Then A1 had set up separate family with the deceased at Sullurpet. However, during nights A1 was not returning to the house and he was not looking after the welfare of the deceased and their children. In 1998, the deceased informed her parents that A1 married A2 and also harassed her and her children. In 1996, A1 got some Gas agency and in that connection he beat the deceased and again sent her to her parents house to bring Rs.30,000/- . Then the parents of the deceased expressed their inability to meet the demand of A1. Then again A1 beat the deceased and sent her to her parents house to bring Rs.30,000/-. Then according to PW.1 they obtained DD for Rs.30,000/- and handed over the DD to their daughter. Then A1 started Gas Agency. However, spent the income for his bad vices and neglected the deceased. Then PW.1 also visited Sullurpet and questioned A1 and his sister. However, they promised that they would look after the deceased well. It is also the case of PW.1 that A1 begot a female child through A2 and brought that child to the deceased and directed her to look after the welfare of that child. Then the deceased refused to look after the child of A2. Then A1 and A2 and sister of A1 had harassed the deceased and they beat the deceased till she became unconscious. This was informed by the owner of the house, wherein the deceased was residing through telephone to the parents of the deceased. Then PW.1 and her husband again went to Sullurpet. Then A1 quarreled with them. Then they brought the deceased to their village Lingamguntla. Seven months thereafter, A1 approached the parents of the deceased and informed that there is complete change in him and that he would remain at Lingamguntla itself and look after the deceased. Then a separate house was taken at the house of one Vangara Satyanarayana, wherein the deceased and A1 were residing together. However, A1 was receiving the letters from A2 from Sullurpet. Then A1 was visiting Sullurpet and he revived his contacts with A2. On 25.11.2000 at about 6.30 PM the milk vendor informed PW.1 that the deceased was not in their house and PW.1 went to the house where the deceased was residing and found the deceased in kneeling position with a thread around her neck. The father of the deceased was not in the village. After the father of the deceased returned to Lingamguntla from Ongole complaint was lodged to the police. According to PW.1, Ex.P1 is the letter recovered from the suitcase of the deceased. PW.13 was working as ASI of Battiprolu Police Station during relevant period. PW.3 is the father of the deceased. PW.13 received Ex.P2 complaint from PW.3 on 25.11.2000 at about 10.00 PM and basing on the same he registered a case in Crime No.75 of 2000 under Section 306 IPC of Maddipadu Police Station and issued FIR Ex.P9. Then a guard was arranged at the scene of offence and on the next day morning PW.13 observed the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of PW.15 Bommineni Anjaneya Prasad and one Bezawada Sambasiva Rao. Ex.P10 is the observation report. Then he seized MO1 from the scene of offence in the presence of the above referred mediators. Then he prepared rough sketch Ex.P11. Then he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P12 is the inquest report. Then he examined PWs.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. He had also seized Ex.P1 letter from PW.3. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. PW.14 was working as SI of Police, Maddipadu during the relevant period. He verified the investigation done by PW.13. He had also examined PWs.4 to 8 and recorded their statements. He had also seized three letters from PW.3. Ex.P1 was sent to the hand writing expert. Ex.P3 is the note book seized from the scene of offence. Ex.P13 is the report of the hand writing expert showing that Ex.P1 is in the hand writing of the deceased. Subsequently, he had also examined PWs.9 to 12 and recorded their statements. PW.16 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and noted the following injuries. “(1) Rigor mortis passed of in upper and lower limbs and lung protrude with clinching of teeth. (2) Ligature mark was present around the neck extending from mastoid passed on left side just above the thoid part in front. (3) Back at the nape of neck inserting encircling the neck. Knot present on left side at the mastered process. No other external injuries on the body.” According to PW.16, he received opinion from the FSL and according to him the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to hanging. Ex.P14 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. After completing investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. Since the accused denied the charges, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and MO1. None were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 is that there is no evidence to show that A1 had harassed the deceased demanding dowry. It is his main submission that there may be some difference between the accused and his wife and merely because there are some quarrels and that out of frustration the deceased might have committed suicide and that does not mean that A1 harassed the deceased demanding dowry. It is also his submission that Ex.P2 is silent regarding demand of dowry. It is also his submission that none of the independent witnesses have stated that A1 harassed the deceased demanding any dowry. It is also his submission that PWs.1 to 3, 7 and 8 are close relatives of the deceased and their evidence is interested one and there are several improved versions in their evidence and, therefore, the Courts below ought not to have relied upon the evidence of those witnesses. It is also his submission that admittedly death occurred after 9 years of the marriage and the Courts below failed to appreciate that there was any harassment for dowry in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the accused had harassed the deceased demanding dowry. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the accused harassed the deceased demanding dowry and whether the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC has been made out. Section 498-A IPC is as follows. ”498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine,. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman-Where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. As seen from the above, cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to life or health of the woman. Explanation-B deals with the harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Thus, it is clear that cruelty is not mere harassment or mere demand for property but even where in a case the husband suspects the character of his wife or ill-treats her such harassment also constitute the first part of the offence. However, the cruelty must be of such nature so as to coerce the wife either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased committed suicide on 25.11.2000. There cannot be any doubt with regard to the same. More over the medical evidence on record and the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, proves the same. Admittedly, the deceased died not within 7 years from the date of her marriage and admittedly she died after about 9 years after the marriage. Therefore, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is not available to the prosecution in this case. Therefore, we have to independently consider whether the evidence on record proves the harassment. A reading of Ex.P2 lodged by PW.3 gives an impression that the accused started harassing the deceased after he developed vices and illicit intimacy with another woman, who was working in the same Lab run by the accused. So, now we have to see whether the conduct of the accused forced the deceased to commit suicide to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Ex.P1 is the letter said to have been written by the deceased. A reading of Ex.P1 letter written by the deceased to her parents reveal that the accused developed illicit intimacy with A2 and that A2 became pregnant. It also reveals that the accused was beating the deceased regularly and that there no sufficient food was provided to her. The deceased also mentioned in the said letter that she had been facing mental torture for the last seven years. It is also mentioned that her husband who was being treated as an elder in the society had developed illicit intimacy with one Sukanya who was working in the Lab and that she was being beaten regularly and that the accused would kill her on any day. The contents of the letter go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and she was driven to commit suicide due to the mental and physical torture caused by the accused. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that explanation (a) of Section 498-A I.P.C. has been attracted and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 stands corroborated with the contents of the letter written by the deceased. There are no merits in this revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Lab Technician and he has to maintain his two minor children and therefore, a lenient view can be taken and that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified. In the circumstances, the sentence is modified. The petitoner- A.1 is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year instead of two years. The fine imposed by the trial Court is confirmed. Subject to the modification of conviction and sentence as indicated above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 15.07.2010 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1809 OF 2004 Dated 15-7-2010