HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.768 of 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.783 of 2007 and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1313 of 2008 Date: September 17, 2010 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.768 of 2007 Between: Mohammad Lal Bi. …Petitioner/Complainant And 1. Noorbasha Subhani & another. …Respondents/Complainants * * * CRIMINAL APPEAL No.783 of 2007 Between: Md. Jani Miya. …Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant And 1. Noorbasha Subhani & 6 others. …Respondents/Accused. * * * CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1313 of 2008 Between: The State of A.P, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant/Petitioner And 1. Noorbasha Subhani & 6 others. …Respondents/Accused * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.768 of 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.783 of 2007 and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1313 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals and one revision case arise out of a common lis. In Criminal Appeal No.1313 of 2008, the Public Prosecutor is the appellant representing the State. In Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2007, P.W.3 who is father of the deceased is the appellant. In Criminal Revision Case No.768 of 2007, P.W.1/ de facto complainant/mother of the deceased is the revision petitioner. All the above three matters are filed questioning common judgment of acquittal recorded by IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam in S.C.No.308 of 2001 and S.C. No.340 of 2002. Father of the deceased is a police officer. The first accused/respondent is an advocate. 2. Noorbasha Fatima Begum, who is the deceased in this case, was given in marriage to A-1. Their marriage took place on 13.11.1998 at Kothagudem. The deceased died on 04.4.2001 with burning injuries, within seven years of her marriage with A-1. Originally, the Nuzvid Town Police registered case in crime No.42 of 2001 and issued Ex.P-6 F.I.R under the caption of ‘woman burns’. After her death in the hospital, altered FIR was given under Ex.P-7 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Subsequent to inquest and other investigation, the case was altered into one for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and Ex.P-8 altered FIR was given. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 alone for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. It was tried in the lower court as S.C. No.308 of 2001. Thereupon, P.W.3/father of the deceased filed a private complaint against A-1 as well as his family members A-2 to A-7 and it was registered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzvid as P.R.C. No.22 of 2002 for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. After committal, the lower court tried the said case as S.C. No.340 of 2002. On memo stated to have been filed by both the parties, both the sessions cases were clubbed together and common evidence was let in during trial of the same in the lower court. 3. The lower court framed charge against A-1 for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in S.C. No.308 of 2001; and framed charges under Sections 498 (A) IPC and 304-B IPC against A-1 to A-7 in S.C. No.340 of 2002. During common trial in the lower court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, M.Os.1 to 4; and Exs.D-1 to D-11 were marked on behalf of the accused; and Exs.C-1 to C-5 were also marked from out of the court record. After considering entire evidence on record, the lower court found A-1 not guilty of the charge under Section 306 IPC and A-1 to A- 7 not guilty of the offences under Sections 498 (A) and 304-B IPC and accordingly recorded finding of acquittal against all of them. Thus, the parties are before this Court in these three matters. 4. It is alleged that at the time of marriage of the deceased with A-1, parents of the deceased gave Hero Honda motorcycle, 15 tolas of Gold, 15 tolas of Silver and Sare articles worth about Rs.1.00 lakh to A-1. Since there is no charge framed by the lower court for any offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the said allegation may not have any relevance herein. After marriage, the deceased joined A-1 to lead marital life with him at Nuzvid of Krishna District from Kothagudem of Khammam District. It is alleged that the accused started harassing and demanding the deceased to bring Rs.2,50,000/- promised by her parents at the time of marriage and that A-1 used to beat her mercilessly forcing her to bring the said dowry amount and that subsequently the accused sent the deceased to the house of P.W.1 demanding her to get Rs.2.00 lakhs to purchase a tractor and that P.W.1 paid Rs.2.00 lakhs to A-1 on 01.3.1999 in the presence of A-2 to A-7 at her house and that even though A-1 promised to purchase tractor in the name of the deceased, he failed to keep up the said promise and purchased tractor in his own name. It is further alleged that not satisfied with the said amount, all the accused further ill-treated and harassed the deceased to bring further amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs for purchasing Mango garden in her name and that the deceased went to her parents’ house and informed the same and that P.W.1 called all the accused to her house and paid Rs.2.00 lakhs to A-1 on 15.6.1999 in the presence of A-2 to A-7 and that in spite of it, A-1 did not fulfil his condition and cheated the deceased and that when the deceased questioned A-1, he abused and harassed the deceased. It is further alleged that on 28.3.2001 A-1 went to Kothagudem along with his wife and that on 04.4.2001 he demanded P.W.1 for Rs.10,000/-, but P.W.1 paid Rs.500/- to him and that thereupon A-1 became angry and immediately left Kothagudem and reached Nuzvid along with the deceased. It is further alleged that A-1 used to beat his wife and harass her not only for the sake of dowry, but also as she did not conceive a child and that therefore the deceased became vexed with the harassment and poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself on 04.4.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. with an intention to commit suicide. Ultimately, the deceased died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. 5. At the outset, it may be noted that in so far as A-2 to A-7 who are family members of A-1 are concerned, there are absolutely no direct overt acts alleged against them as against the deceased either towards demand of dowry or towards harassment of the deceased for the sake of dowry. The entire allegations are against A-1 only. A-2 to A-7 are stated to be the persons in whose presence the previous amounts of Rs.2.00 lakhs each on two occasions were stated to have been paid. Therefore, A-2 to A-7 were rightly found not guilty by the lower court. A-2, in fact, died even during trial in the lower court. The respondents’ counsel stated in this Court that A-4 also died pending the appeals in this Court. 6. At the outset, it has to be noted that though death of the deceased was in circumstances otherwise than natural circumstances, there is no indication on record to show whether it was a case of homicide or suicide. P.W.9, who is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of the deceased simply opined that the deceased died due to burns. In Ex.P-4 inquest report, the panchayatdars, after witnessing recording of statements from blood relations of the deceased and witnesses, could not come to any definite conclusion whether it was a case of homicide or suicide or accidental death. Dying declarations of the deceased Exs.C-4 and C- 5 assume relevance on this aspect. Ex.C-4 is statement of the deceased recorded by one Head Constable. P.W.10, who is the investigating officer and Sub-Inspector of Police, identified the same as one which is in the handwriting of his Head Constable. Ex.C-5 is statement of the deceased recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer as dying declaration. It was also elicited from cross-examination of P.W.10 during which time Ex.C-5 was marked. Ex.C-4 is to the effect that she and her husband have been living together separately from his parents and that they have no issues and that both of them have been happy and that one-week ago she and her husband together went to her native place Kothagudem and returned to Nuzvid on the date of incident. The deceased further stated that while her husband was taking bath, she lit up stove for preparing starch to her sarees and that her silk nighty caught flames and caused burn injuries to her and that when she cried aloud, her husband and neighbours came and put off fire from her body and that subsequently her husband admitted her in Government Hospital, Nuzvid. In Ex.C-5 statement recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the deceased stated that on that day at about 12.00 noon she was wearing silk nighty and that when she lit up kerosene stove for cooking at her house, flames suddenly came from the stove and her nighty caught fire resulting in burning her body and that when she cried, her husband came and covered blanket on her and that thereafter her husband took her to hospital by auto. She stated therein that she was giving that statement consciously and that there is no compulsion of anybody for the same. Ex.C-4 statement was recorded by the Head Constable at about 5-00 p.m., whereas Ex.C-5 statement was recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer at about 10-00 p.m. on the same day. Version of the deceased in both these statements has been consistent to the effect that her silk nighty caught fire when she lit a stove in her house. Ex.C-2 is endorsement of the Medical Officer about fit state of mind of the deceased at the time of recording of Ex.C-4 statement by the Head Constable. Further, Ex.C-1 hospital intimation given by the hospital authorities to the police shows that it was a case of accidental burns with stove and that it was A-1 who brought the deceased to the hospital. There is no contra statement of the deceased prior to her death. 7. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor and the appellants’ counsel that there is every possibility of the husband and his men holding influence on the deceased at the time of she giving Exs.C-4 and C-5. There is no basis for the said contention in record. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Exs.C-4 and C-5 are voluntary statements of the deceased given after the incident and prior to her death. The said statements were not retracted by the deceased subsequently till her death. So, in the absence of proof of commission of suicide, the question of applicability of Section 306 IPC may not arise at all. 8. With regard to the previous incidents of demanding Rs.2.00 lakhs by A-1 on two occasions, one for purchase of tractor and the other for purchase of landed property, there is evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who are parents of the deceased. With regard to the incident which is stated to have taken place on 04.4.2001 at Kothagudem in their house regarding A-1 demanding Rs.10,000/- and P.W.1 paying only Rs.500/- is concerned, there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 7 and 8. P.W.7 is a neighbour and P.W.8 lives at some distance from the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 at Kothagudem. If really any such incident like beating of the deceased by A-1 took place in the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 on 04.4.2001, the deceased would not have failed to mention that recent fact which took place on the same day at Kothagudem in her statements Exs.C-4 and C-5. On the other hand, the deceased categorically stated in Ex.C-4 statement that both she and her husband were living happily. During lifetime of the deceased, there was absolutely no iota of allegation against A-1. All the allegations cropped up against A-1 only subsequent to death of the deceased. The deceased had no grouse at all against A-1 while breathing her last. 9. In the circumstances, I do not propose to place any reliance on the prosecution evidence with regard to the two previous incidents of payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs each and also the alleged incident, which is stated to have taken place on 04.4.2001 at Kothagudem. Thus, on consideration of entire evidence on record, the lower court rightly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and prosecution case. I do not find the prosecution establishing the ingredients of either Section 498 (A) IPC or Section 304-B IPC in this case, as there is thorough failure of proof of demand of any amount or dowry or additional dowry or presents by A-1. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower court. 10. In the result, both the appeals as well as the revision case are dismissed. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: September 17, 2010. BSB