IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.882 OF 2004 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Konakati China Mallaiah & 2 others ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is directed by the State, against the judgment, dated 13.07.2001, in Crl.A.No.195 of 2000, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal, in setting aside the conviction of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and further conviction and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. as imposed in the judgment, dated 17.07.2000, in Sessions Case No.50 of 1999, on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: Accused No.1 is the husband and Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of Swaroopa (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). That the marriage between Accused No.1 and the deceased took place about three years prior to the death of the deceased i.e., on 21.05.1998. At the time of marriage, P.W.1-father of the deceased gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards “Pasupu Kunkuma” to his daughter. Thereafter, the Accused No.1 and the deceased lived happily for some time. In connection with Deepavali festival, P.W.1 gave a cash of Rs.10,000/-, television and air cooler worth about Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, Accused No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- as additional dowry for which P.W.1 paid Rs.20,000/- to them. The Accused, not satisfied with the same, started harassing the deceased mentally and physically stating that she was stout, whereas the Accused No.1 was lean. On 21.05.1998, P.W.1 came to know that his daughter consumed pesticide poison. Immediately, P.W.1 along with other family members went to Balavanthapuram Village and found the deceased died. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with Duggondi Police. The police registered a case in Crime No.36 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A I.P.C. The Sub- Divisional Police Officer took up further investigation and sent requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi, to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, the inquest was conducted. After inquest, the dead body was subjected to Post-Mortem examination. On 08.07.1998, all the accused were arrested at their residence and they were sent to the Court for judicial custody. After receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the doctor who conducted Post-Mortem examination opined that the deceased died due to consumption of Organo Phosphate poison. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When charges under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. On appeal, the said convictions and sentences were set aside by the Appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that due to harassment by the accused for additional dowry, the deceased committed suicide; that the death of the deceased is unnatural; that the death took place within seven years after the marriage; that there is no other reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 to speak false against the accused; that after consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C., but the Appellate Court came to a wrong conclusion and acquitted the accused, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment under challenge. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused contended that the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, rightly came to the conclusion that their evidence is full of improvements; the earliest version of prosecution case does not reveal about the harassment or cruelty with regard to demand of dowry, and accordingly they were acquitted, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Section 498A I.P.C. reads as follows: “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 purpose 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. The necessary ingredients to be proved by prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. are as follows: “Firstly: The death of a woman should be caused by any burns or bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances; Secondly: Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; Thirdly: She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; Fourthly: Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry and Fifthly: Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.” 12. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the deceased was performed with Accused No.1. According to the evidence of P.W.1, he has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry to the accused and also gave a watch worth Rs.1,000/-. Six months after the marriage, on Deepavali festival, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused to bring the deceased for the festival. There Accused Nos.2 and 3 questioned P.W.1 as to how much amount would be given to the deceased as Deepavali dowry. In the first instance, P.W.1 refused to give any amount as Deepavali katnam, but as Accused Nos.2 and 3 insisted persistently, P.W.1 agreed to give Rs.10,000/- and television. Then P.W.1 brought his daughter to his house. After festival, P.W.1 sent his daughter along with Rs.10,000/- and a black and white television. For about few months, Accused No.1 and the deceased lived happily. After one year, Accused No.1 started demanding her to bring Hero Honda motorcycle. Then P.W.1 gave Rs.20,000/- to Accused No.1 to purchase Hero Honda motorcycle, but Accused No.1 did not purchase the vehicle and 15 days thereafter, the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and requested him to give Accused No.1 Rs.20,000/- for purchasing Hero Honda motorcycle, as the amount given by P.W.1 was not sufficient. 13. The evidence of P.W.1 about the deceased informing P.W.1 that Accused No.1 demanded Rs.20,000/- 15 days prior to the death of the deceased was testified before the Court for the first time, because P.W.9 admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him that when P.W.1 went to the house of the accused, the accused stated that unless P.W.1 gives the television and Rs.10,000/-, they would not send his daughter and therefore, P.W.1 agreed to give the same. P.W.9 also admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him that Accused No.1 demanded Hero Honda motorcycle and then he gave Rs.20,000/- to Accused No.1 and thereafter, the deceased came and stated that Rs.20,000/- was not sufficient for purchasing Hero Honda motorcycle and Accused No.1 was again demanding Rs.20,000/- more and that the accused abused the deceased for not giving Rs.20,000/-. Similarly, P.W.9 admitted that P.W.1 did not state before him that 3 days prior to the death of the deceased, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and that the deceased informed him that the accused were harassing her. Therefore, almost the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be an improvement or omission. When the improvement or omission affects the main substratum of the prosecution case, then the said improvement or omission cannot be ignored as insignificant. If the improvements made by witnesses are trivial in nature, much importance cannot be given. In this case, improvements made by witnesses go to the root of the prosecution, as because those improvements are essential ingredients of offence for which the accused are charged. If really, the deceased was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry and such harassment resulting in the death of the deceased, then certainly, it would attract the provisions of Section 304B I.P.C. 14. P.W.2 is no other than the mother of the deceased. She also made improvements in her evidence because she did not state before P.W.9 that the accused demanded a television, air cooler and Rs.10,000/- and that the accused harassed the deceased stating that she has not brought sufficient dowry and that if Rs.20,000/- was given to the accused, they would look after the deceased properly and that P.Ws.1 and 2 paid the amount to the accused, as they harassed the deceased. As a matter of fact, P.W.2 admitted that they gave the television, air cooler and certain cash only for the comfort of their daughter. There was no agreement before or after the marriage to show that a television, air cooler and an amount of Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Hero Honda motorcycle were agreed to be given or that the accused demanded P.Ws.1 and 2 to pay them in connection with the marriage. 15. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 who is the cousin of P.W.1 and is not a direct witness to speak about any harassment made by the accused, he stated that he only came to know through P.W.1. Even this witness did not state before the police that the accused stated to P.W.1 that unless P.W.1 pays Rs.20,000/-, the accused would not send the deceased to the house of P.W.1. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W.3. 16. It is not in dispute that P.W.7 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The Inquest Mediators opined that the deceased died due to consumption of Organo Phosphate poison. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggondi, has not recorded the statements of any witnesses during inquest. When P.W.4-doctor conducted autopsy, he gave opinion that the deceased died due to consumption of Organo Phosphate poison after receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory Report. As seen from the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, which is marked as Ex.P3, the deceased died due to consumption of Organo Phosphate, an insecticide poison. On perusing Ex.P3, the doctor gave report that the deceased died due to consumption of Organic Phosphate poison. Even the accused did not dispute or deny about the cause of the death as stated by the doctor. P.Ws.1 to 3 have not stated during the course of investigation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the Appellate Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused. The said order does not call for any interference by this Court as there are no compelling or substantial reasons. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 13.07.2001, in Crl.A.No.195 of 2000, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 17th November, 2009 KL