SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Padala Kiran Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
P.P., Hyd. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2015
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Ravi Shankar.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor AP.

Point of Law: An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the same should be made voluntarily and truthful. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and be made the basis for conviction, if it passes the test of credibility.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A, 201 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 207, 209 and 313 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused - deceased is the wife of A.1. Her marriage with A.1 took place on 17.05.2006 at the house of the accused. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased agreed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- and five Tulas of gold as dowry. At the time of negotiations, a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid as advance. A week prior to the date of her marriage, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was paid as dowry with a promise to repay the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, one year after the marriage. A.1 and the deceased were blessed with two children. It is said that even after payment of balance of dowry amount, the accused used to harass the deceased by demanding her to bring additional dowry, which was informed to her parents.

Finding of the Court:

It is no doubt true that death took within seven years of the marriage. Even assuming that there is evidence with regard to demand for additional dowry and harassment for not bring the same, but when the involvement of A.1 in the cause of death is doubtful or that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment for dowry and when the body is not found in the house of accused and there being no evidence that it was A.1 who shifted the deceased to the house of Jeevaratnam after the incident, the conviction under Section 304-B IPC - imposed under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act are upheld.

Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Originally, A.1 to A.5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short, “D.P.Act”].

2. Vide Judgment, dated 05.01.2015, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Sessions Case No.66 of 2013, while acquitting A.2 to A.5 of all the above charges, convicted A.1 alone under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months; A.1 was further found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 498-A IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months; he was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. Though, a charge was framed for an offence under Section 304-B IPC, the trial Court did not impose any sentence under the Section 304-B IPC though A.1 was found guilty for the said offence. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

(i) A.2 and A.3 are the parents of A.1 while A.4 is the brother and A.5 is the sister of A.1. The deceased is the wife of A.1. Her marriage with A.1 took place on 17.05.2006 at the house of the accused. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased agreed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- and five Tulas of gold as dowry. At the time of negotiations, a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid as advance. A week prior to the date of her marriage, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was paid as dowry with a promise to repay the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, one year after the marriage. A.1 and the deceased were blessed with two children. It is said that even after payment of balance of dowry amount, the accused used to harass the deceased by demanding her to bring additional dowry, which was informed to her parents, who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2.

(ii) It is said that as the harassment in the hands of the accused is increased, the deceased went to her parents’ house and stayed there for two months. Thereafter, on the advice of the elders and on an assurance given by A.2, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. While so, the son of the deceased died. At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the matrimonial house of the deceased, at which point of time, she informed that though her son was suffering with fever, he was not taken to hospital. Apprehending threat to the life of the deceased from the hands of accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 brought back the deceased to their house. Later, A.1 along with one Nagam Jeevaratnam came to their house at Vizag for Dussehra festival and on their request, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial house. P.Ws.1 and 2 invited A.1 and the deceased to their house for Sankranthi Festival, but only deceased was sent to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 for festival. After staying for couple of days, the deceased went back to her in-law’s house.

(iii) On 02.02.2012, the deceased telephoned to P.W.1 and informed about the harassment for additional dowry by the accused, as more dowry was given to several grooms in the village. P.W.1 convinced her to adjust herself. On 04.02.2012, one G. Krishna telephoned to P.W.1 informing about the death of the deceased. On the very same day, at about 7.15 A.M., A.1 telephoned to P.W.1 and informed about the deceased committing suicide by hanging herself in the house of one Jeevaratnam. On receipt of said information, the family members went and saw the dead body of the deceased, lying in the kitchen with a mark around the throat.

(iv) P.W.1 along with other family members went to Pathapatnam Police St

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top