IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Appikonda Naga Dharmalinga Mahesh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rep.By Pp. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2010
Decided on : 03-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 228, 313, 207, 374(2), 235 (2) - Offence of murder - Commits dowry death -Appeal agaisnt conviction - Harassment and crulety - Wheter proved beyond reasonable doubt - Held, If there is evidence whether direct or circumstantial to prima facie support a charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the trial Court can and indeed ought to frame a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, which would then be the main charge and not an alternative charge as is erroneously assumed in some quarters. If the main charge of murder is not proved against the accused at the trial, the Court can look into the evidence to determine whether the alternative charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304B is established. The ingredients constituting the two offences are different, thereby demanding appreciation of evidence from the perspective relevant to such ingredients. - matter is remanded to learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, by setting aside judgment in Sessions Case, directing learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame a charge under Section 302 IPC in addition to charge under Section 304-B IPC, which was already framed and to permit prosecution to adduce additional evidence, if any, and to recall witnesses that were examined by prosecution and defence, if they so desires - Dispose of.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions Case No.80 of 2009, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the learned Additional Sessions Judge”), challenging the judgment, dated 26.07.2010, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”), convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after hearing about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.80 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge arose out of PRC No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili (for short, “the learned Magistrate”) pertaining to Crime No.2 of 2009 of Rambilli Police Station, which was committed to the Court of Session.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet, filed by the State, represented by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Narsipatnam, Sub- Division, Narsipatnam in the above Crime, is as follows: The accused is a resident of Darabhogapuram Village of Rambilli Mandal and he is a Tailor. One Appikonda Nagamani (for short, “the deceased”), daughter of Anakapalli Venkata Ramana, was married to the accused on 18.03.2006 according to their caste custom at Dharabogapuram village. LW.1 – A. Venkata Ramana and LW.2 – A. Satyavathi are the father and mother and LW.3 – Anakapalli Siva is the brother of the deceased. Both the accused and deceased lived happily for about two years. After the marriage, they were not blessed with any children. Accused started harassing the deceased attributing that she did not conceive pregnancy due to her ill-health and used to abuse and beat her subjecting her to cruelty. On 20.08.2008, the marriage of brother of deceased i.e., LW.3 was performed by his parents. The accused, who is under the impression that LW.3 got more dowry from his in-laws, started insisting the deceased to bring dowry pointing out that her parents got money from in-laws of LW.3. The deceased tried to convince the accused that her parents did not have the money. The accused did not hear her and intensified his harassment physically and mentally by beating her. He also attributed to her that they have no children because of her only. The deceased used to inform her parents about the behaviour of the accused and the harassment caused to her by the accused. LW.1 and LW.2 used to ask her to adjust herself and to live with the accused. But the accused did not change his behaviour. On 01.01.2009, the accused stayed back at his house without going for work on the plea that he is not well and started abusing and beating her. He threatened to kill her. At about 03:30 p.m. accused asked the deceased to prepare tea for him and when the deceased went inside, the accused closed the doors, kept her inside, beat her and took her to the rear room, picked up kerosene tin, poured kerosene on her head and drenched her with kerosene and poured some kerosene on himself and firstly set fire on her with a lighted kerosene lamp. In view of that the deceased was caught in flames and sustained severe burns covering 86% of total area of her body. Accused also received burns. When the deceased raised hue and cry, her mother-in-law, LW.6 – Appikonda Ramalaxmi, LW.7 – Sirimalla Nagamani and others came there and rescued them from their further burning and took both of them to the Government Hospital, Anakapalli in 108 Ambulance and from there to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam for expert treatment. They have seized half burnt pillow, deepam buddi, emp
Jasvinder Saini and others v. State(Government of NCT of Delhi)
The court mandated that for a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate a proximate link between cruelty and the death, which was found lacking in this case.
The court affirmed that a conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC is established when a woman dies shortly after marriage due to cruelty for dowry demands, while simultaneous conviction un....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dowry death cases; lack of sufficient evidence to establish ongoing harassment led to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to dowry death, burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, and sentencing principles in criminal case....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict an accused under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connecti....
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.