Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B. KRISHNA MOHAN, JJ.
Maddineni Venkata Vara Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 976, 1174 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 207, 313 and 428 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 B and 306 - Harassment for dowry – Dowry Death - Death note - Appeal against conviction - Substance of charge against accused is that A.1 to A.5 and A.7 subjected deceased to harassment for dowry, as a result of which she committed suicide in her Parents house - After marriage, deceased joined A.1 at Chennai where they lived happily for some time - Thereafter, A.1 started demanding additional dowry and articles, which was informed by deceased to her parents (PW-2). It is said that A.2 to A.5 and A.7 also harassed deceased for dowry - Whether it was because of alleged harassment by A.1 and his family members or whether due to blackmailing by A.6 for money - Held, While death note states that A.1 acted obediently with deceased, but evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 show that deceased used to inform them about harassment by A.1 for additional dowry - It is also to be noted here that allegations in death note that accused used to blackmail frequently also appears to be incorrect - Court hold that contents of death note, as noted above may constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC against A.1 only, but not an offence under Section 304-B IPC - Conviction recorded against A.1 for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC is altered to one under Section 498A IPC - For altered conviction, A.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Since A.1 has already undergone imprisonment, he shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C - Consequently, A.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case - Conviction recorded against A.6 for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is also set aside and accordingly, he is acquitted for said offence - Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 1174 of 2014 is filed by A.1, while Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2014 is filed by A.6 against conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 466 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.
2. Originally, A.1 to A.7 were tried on six charges:
| S. No. | Charge | Against | Finding | Sentence |
| 1. | Section 304-B IPC | A1 to A.5 and A7 | (a) A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. | Imprisonment for life |
| (b) A2 to A5 and A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. | ----- | |||
| 2. | Section 498A IPC | A1 to A5 and A7 | Found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. |
|
| 3. | Section 406 IPC | A1 to A.5 | Found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. | ----- |
| 4. | Section 3 of D.P. Act | A1, A4 and A5 | Found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. | ----- |
| 5. | Section 4 of D.P. Act | A1, A4 and A5 | Found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act. | ----- |
| 6. | Section 306 IPC | A6 | Guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. | ----- |
| Further, A.1 and A.6 were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each payable to PWs. 1 and 2, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each, imposed under Section 431 Cr.P.C. | ||||
3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that A.1 to A.5 and A.7 subjected the deceased Mohd. Suhela Akthar to harassment for dowry, as a result of which she committed suicide on 12.09.2008 in her parents house. It is also said that the act of blackmailing by A.6 showing the photographs and his demand of money from the father of the deceased, also made her to commit suicide.
4. The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:
(ii) PW-1 and 2 are parents of the deceased. PW-3 is younger brother of PW-1. PW-4 is the sister of PW-2 and PW-5 is the neighbour. PW-6 is Government Khazi who performed the marriage of deceased and A.1 on 22.04.2006 at Nellore. PW-7 is the tailor, who was present at the time of marriage talks between A.1 and the deceased.
(iii) The marriage of A.1 with the deceased took place on 23.04.2006 at Nellore. At the time of marriage, PW-1 gave Rs. 3.00 lakhs cash by way of Demand Drafts, 50 soverigens of gold ornaments, household articles worth Rs. 1,50,000/- apart from Rs. 60,000/- to A.1 for purchase of a motor cycle.
(iv) After the marriage, the deceased joined A.1 at Chennai where they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, A.1 started demanding additional dowry and articles, which was informed by the deceased to her parents (PW-2). It is said that A.2 to A.5 and A.7 also harassed the deceased for dowry. PW-2 informed the same to PW-1, who approached A.3 and A.7, who acted as elders at the time of marriage. A.3 is said to have told PW-1 that if the marriage of A.1 was performed with some other girl, they would have got more dowry. PW-1 told them that he fulfilled all the terms agreed upon at the time of marriage, but A.3 is said to have stated that the articles given by them are not of standard quality.
(v) In the month of November, 2006, PW-1 gave Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which he gave a sum of Rs. 95,000/- by way of demand draft to A.1; Rs. 5000/- cash to A.3. Though the amount as demanded was paid, but the same did not meet their demands, and as such, A.1 increased cruelty against the deceased. It is said that whenever A.3 went to Che
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
