Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Kollipaka Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State, Shree Penugahchiprolu, krishna District - Respondent
Decided On : 10-09-91
DOWRY DEATH - SECTION 498-A, 306 IPC - SUICIDE BY MARRIED WOMAN - PRESUMPTION OF ABETMENT BY HUSBAND - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 113-A - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
A young married woman committed suicide within two years of her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the suicide was abetted by her husband and his family members due to dowry harassment. The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, and the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members, which led her to commit suicide. The Court relied on the testimony of neighbors who witnessed the disputes between the couple, as well as on the contents of a panchayat undertaking letter that was executed by the husband and his family members.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members. 2. Whether the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband in case of dowry deaths under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was applicable in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of the neighbors and the contents of the panchayat undertaking letter were sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members. 2. The Court held that the presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband in case of dowry deaths under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act was applicable in this case, as the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence of harassment.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the husband under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, but reduced the sentence to two years RI for each offense, to run concurrently.
( 1 ) IT is the case of an young lady about 21 years old who, within two years of her marriage, died. The death is suicidal in nature and it has been established by the medical evidence also. Charges were framed under Section 306 and 498 -A. IPC A-1 to A-7 were faced with trial. To prove the prosecution case, P. Ws. 1 to 16 were examined and documents, Exs. P-1 to P-9 were marked. The learned Addisional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has got the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and who has got an opportunity to read to the contents of the documents, came to the conclusion that A-l alone can be convicted and the rest of the persons can be acquitted. Accordingly, A-l was found guilty of the offence under Section 498-AIPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer SI for 20 days and to undergo RI for a period of four years and shall also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-; in default to suffer SI for one month for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is against that an appeal has been filed. The appellate Court also duly taking into consideration the introduction of Section 113-A of the evidence Act and drawing a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband in case of dowry deaths and also taking into account the evidence of P. Ws, 5 to 7 in particular, with reference to Ex-1, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the harassment resulted in the hands of her husband and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on a-1. It is against that the present revision has been filed.
( 2 ) POWERS under revision to be exercised by this Courtin case of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts, is very limited.
( 3 ) SRI M. S. Rajalingam, the learned Counsel for the accused stated that both the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in holding that the alleged suicide having been committed within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage is a reasonable ground to presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband. Except a bald statement that all the circumstances of the case go to prove the abetment there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the incident of suicide and its abetment. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused A-1. The Court has to assess the evidence and remove chaff from the grain and has to come to the conclusion whether all or any one of them has committed the offence or not. The very fact that he gave benefit of doubt on the same evidence by acquitting A-2 to A-7 itself is an indication that he has applied his mind and probed further and arrived at the conclusion that A-l is the person responsible for causing the death of the deceased. When detailed investigation has been made and the Court has applied its mind and gave benefit of doubt to A-2 to A-7, it cannot be said that A-l also is entitled for the benefit of doubt as was given by the trial Court to A-2 to A-7.
( 4 ) IT is contended that P. Ws. 5 to 7 are the neighbours and out of them two witnesses have turned hostile and the two Courts ought not to have given much credence or value to their testimony. Normally, in the case of dowry deaths, the parents, brothers, and the relations of the deceased are being examined, but, in this case, the prosecution thought it fit to examine the neighbours who are available. P. W. 5 supported the case of the prosecution that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased and there was a panchayatand that nothing has been elicited to discred it his evidence. Normally, the neighbours of the accused, P. Ws. 5 to 7 are the persons who sail along with the accused so that they may not purchase any enirnity with them. Their interests in the family of the deceased is remote and that there is general agreement between P. Ws. 5 to 7 with that of P. Ws. 2,
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
