2011 (1) Supreme 628
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.
Keesari Madhav Reddy — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2004
with
State of A.P. — Appellant
versus
Keesari Madhav Reddy & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2006
Decided on : 4-2-2011
Facts of the Case :
Accused persons husband and inlaws of deceased were prosecuted herein in the instant case for pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire thereby causing her death .As per Prosecution case deceased was illtreated and harassment was meted out to her in view of unfulfilled dowery demands .Trial Court convicted accused persons. On Appeals thereagainst, High Court, set aside the conviction under Section 302 of IPC recorded with respect to A1 and upheld his conviction under Section 304B of the IPC. A2 and A3, however, were acquitted in toto.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instances of harassment of deceased had gone on for almost three years right from marriage up to her death and for this purpose there was evidence not only of parents or the sister of deceased but independent witnesses as well. Repeated attempts by her parents and others to get accused to relent with respect to their demands had remained unsuccessful and the harassment continued unabated.The primary evidence in this case was the dying declaration Exhibit P5 recorded by PW-15 Magistrate in the presence of Dr. who certified that she was fit to make a statement. In said dying declaration, deceased clearly stated that her husband A1 was always abusing her and that she had been set afire by him. PW-15 also stated that dying declaration had been recorded after the doctor had given a certificate of fitness. Even though there was no reference whatsoever to the fact that kerosene oil had been poured on her but no reason to doubt statement made by deceased and recorded by a Magistrate. Insofar as A2 and A3 were concerned deceased clearly did not say anything about their involvement with the burning incident .Observation of High Court that a case under Section 302 of IPC was not made out against A1 not appeared to be correct. A1 held liable to be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. Acquittal of A2 and A3 was, however, maintained.
JUDGMENT
Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —
1. The judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 339 of 2004 and 613 of 2006. They arise from the following facts:
1.1 The deceased Keesari Kalavathi, the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2 of village Kondur, was married to A1 Keesari Madhav Reddy son of the other two accused A2 and A3, Keesari Venkata Reddy and Keesari Promila. The marriage between the deceased and A1 was arranged with the efforts of P.W. 4 Peddi Reddy, the elder son-in-law of P.W. 1. During the course of the settlement of the marriage P.W. 1 had agreed to pay Rs. 80,000/- towards dowry and also supply articles worth Rs. 6000/- but at the time of the pooja held at the house of the accused, P.W. 1 paid Rs. 40,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount after the accused and the deceased had lived happily and peacefully for about one month. The accused were, however, not happy with this arrangement and they told the deceased to bring the balance amount and for that purpose would beat and abuse her and when P.W. 1 visited his daughter she narrated the harassment meted out to her. P.W. 1 thereupon brought the deceased to his house with the permission of A2 and A3 but none of the accused made any effort to take her back to the matrimonial home with the result that in the first year of marriage, the deceased lived with her husband only for a month. It appears that sometime in 1998 A1 had appendicitis whereupon P.W. 1 took him to Dr. Ravinder Reddy, who hospitalised A-1. P.W. 1 also spent a huge amount of money for his operation. After his discharge from the hospital A1 took his wife with him to the matrimonial home, but the demands for the balance amount of dowry etc. were renewed by the accused sometime in the year 1999. P.W. 1 came to the house of his elder daughter P.W. 3 to find out as to why the accused were not taking the deceased back home. A dispute erupted at that time between A1 and his elder brother regarding dowry and it was decided that out of the Rs. 20,000/- due to A2 and A3, A1 and his elder brother would pay Rs. 10,000/- each to clear of the dues. This arrangement was apparently carried out, on which A1 and his wife stayed together at various places for sometime. It appears however that the demands for dowry still continued and the deceased and the couple had an on-off relationship with each other over a period of time. On the 19th April, 2000, P.Ws. 1 and 3 went to the house of P.W.2 where P.W.9 was also present and they were told that a few days earlier the deceased had been administered a beating by the accused and that she was not being provided any food by them. On this information P.Ws 7 and 9 called A1 and A3 before them and told them not to misbehave on which they promised that they would not harass the deceased any further. The same day, however, i.e. 19th of April, 2000 A1 went to the house of P.W. 9 and called P.Ws. 1,3 and 4 and asked for Rs. 2,000/- to purchase a table fan. P.W. 1 promised to pay the said amount at a later stage. On the 20th of April, 2000, at about 8:00a.m. the deceased came running out of her matrimonial home with burn injuries raising a hue and cry and fell down in front of the house. P.W. 12 noticed the deceased with burn injuries and immediately rushed to the house of P.W. 3 who in turn rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying there with burn injuries. At that time, A1 and A3 were also present whereas A2 was missing. The deceased was thereafter shifted to Dr. Jogu Kistaiah’ Hospital in an auto rickshaw. The doctor refused to treat her as she was in a serious condition and they accordingly shifted her in a jeep to MGM Hospital, Warangal. On the way to the hospital, P.W. 1 enquired from the deceased as to the circumstances in which she had received the injuries and she stated that on the 19th of April, 2000, that is a day earlier, the accused had refused to give her any food and that at about 8:00 a.m. on the 20th of April, 2000, A2 and A3 had got hold of her and p
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.