THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 587 of 2000 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.), is preferred by the appellant/accused, challenging the judgment dated 29.03.2000 in Sessions Case No. 286 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C.’), and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this criminal appeal may be stated as follows: On 28.10.1994, on receipt of telephonic message from Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad that one Smt. Marlene Joseph (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was admitted in the hospital, P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police, Tukaramgate police station rushed to the Hospital and found the deceased on bed with burn injuries. He recorded her statement, wherein she stated that out of fear of getting preparing records of the school, she resorted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her. Basing on the said statement, P.W.12 registered case in crime no.128 of 1994 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he conducted panchanama of scene of offence, seized the material objects in the presence of mediators, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 10.11.1994 at 10.00 AM, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, police recorded statements of blood relatives of the deceased, which revealed that the accused harassed the deceased and unable to tolerate the harassment, she committed suicide. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet is laid for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. 3. The trial Court framed the following charges against the accused. “Firstly: That you being the husband of Smt. Marlene Joseph and having married her about 9 years prior to 28.10.1994. Some time after marriage, you started harassing and ill-treating your wife Marlene Joseph by beating her daily saying that she has not brought sufficient dowry. At the time of marriage her parents gave you jewellery and household articles as per your demand. You used to beat her on one pretext or the other and send her to her parents’ house. When she refused to come to your house, you also beat her. You used to harass her mentally and physically for more dowry and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.498A of Indian Penal Code and within cognizance. Secondly: That on 28th day of October, 1994 at about 9 A.M. at H.No.10-3-2/9A, Sripuri Colony, East Maredpally, Sec’bad one Smt.Marlene Joseph your wife committed suicide and that you abetted its commission by subjecting her to cruelty and harassing by beating her as she did not bring sufficient dowry and you also used to beat her on one pretext or the other and due to the harassment and ill- treatment caused to her by you she committed suicide by self immolation and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.306 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused in telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 4. 5. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above, while acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by appellant/accused. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution established its case against the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial court is correct, legal and proper ? 8. Mr. D.Purnachandra Reddy, the learned counsel/State Brief appointed by this Court appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused prior to her death for or in connection with unlawful demand, and the statement given by the deceased to P.Ws.1 to 4 and 11 would clearly go to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty prior to her death, and therefore the statement of the deceased to the aforesaid witnesses does not fall under the category of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to convict the appellant, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that harassment is one of the circumstances resulting in her death, and as there was no evidence to show about the abetment, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of drama would be admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the trial court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 10. The charges framed against the accused are for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. as there is no evidence to show that the accused instigated her to commit suicide or facilitated the deceased to commit suicide. However, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Under Section 498A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. 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 to 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. 11. P.W.1 is mother of the deceased. She stated that the accused used to quarrel with her daughter and manhandle her for money; that, the accused was not having any permanent job and whenever he was not having any work, he used to bring her daughter to her and stay with them; that, in the month of September, 1994, the accused came to her and promised that the deceased would be looked after well and that he had got a job and that he would not manhandle the deceased, and requested her to send the deceased and children along with him to his house; that, on 28.10.1994 at about 8.00 PM, she came to know that her daughter was admitted in Gandhi Hospital with burn injuries. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that it is not as though the deceased informed P.W.1 about the accused demanding money. There is quite possibility for the accused to make unlawful demand because the accused was not having any permanent job. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the accused making unlawful demand for money. That is the reason why the trial court rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, who is none other than mother of the deceased, as she is the best witness to speak about the harassment or cruelty if any meted out by the accused to the deceased. 12. P.W. 2 is the Aaya and P.W.4 is the Principal, working in the School in which the deceased was working. Their evidence would go to show that the deceased informed them that the accused was harassing her for bringing money from her parents’ house. If the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 is to be accepted that they were informed by the deceased, it has to be seen whether it would fall under the category of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On this aspect, this Court in an unreported decision dated 22.7.2009 in Criminal Appeal 81 of 2000 and Transfer Criminal Appeal No. 575 OF 2000, held thus: (para 26). “The harassment for bringing certain amount was not for two or three instances and the harassment was continuous one. The evidence would go to show that the accused was addicted to bad vices like consuming alcohol and incurred certain debts and to discharge those debts, the accused was pressurizing the deceased to bring money from her parents. This is one of the circumstances, which prompted the deceased to take extreme step of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting fire to her. In view of the decision in Kans Raj’s case (2 supra) {AIR 2000 SC 2324} , the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 7 with regard to the harassment to the deceased by the accused would clearly admissible under Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 498-A IPC and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the said conviction.” Following the above judgment, it is one of the circumstances resulting in her death and so the statement would be admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is no reason for P.Ws. 2 and 4 to speak false against the accused because they both are strangers to the accused. Unless the deceased inform them about the harassment by the accused, there is no reason for them to speak false against the accused. Except suggesting that the deceased did not inform them about the harassment by the accused, nothing has been elicited from their evidence to discredit the same. 13. P.W.10 is none other than brother of the deceased. He did not speak about the cruelty. He stated that four days after the incident, on coming to know that his sister was admitted in Hospital, he went to the Gandhi Hospital. 14. P.W.11, who is the son of the deceased, though stated that every Sunday the accused used to send the deceased to the house of his sister for asking money, that has not been stated by him when he was examined by police. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.11 is clearly an improvement. 15. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, it is clear that the deceased was treated cruelly by the accused by making unlawful demand. There cannot be any dispute that any harassment or cruelty, by or any of the relatives of the husband, with regard to unlawful demand, is cruelty within the meaning of explanation to Section 498A I.P.C. Hence, the trial Court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record in right perspective, found the appellant/accused guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced him, and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 29.03.2000 in Sessions Case No. 286 of 1996 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 27.01.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 587 OF 2000 Date: 27.01.2010 Between: Edula Jangaiah ….Appellant/A.1 and State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 587 of 2000 27.1.2010