ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Sarangam Dayakar Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Re. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. Amaravathi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 588 of 2009
Decided On : 04-04-2023
DOWRY DEATH - CONVICTION - APPELLANT CHALLENGED CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 304-B IPC - COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PROSECUTION PROVED THAT THE DECEASED COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING INTO THE RIVER ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION OF SUICIDE - COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED WAS NOTHING BUT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES - COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS FURTHER ABLE TO PROVE THAT SOON BEFORE DEATH, THE DECEASED WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT BY THE APPELLANT WITH A DEMAND FOR DOWRY OR IN CONNECTION WITH DOWRY - COURT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTION CATEGORICALLY ESTABLISHED THE CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 304-B IPC AGAINST THE APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased committed suicide by jumping into the Penna River on account of the harassment meted out to her from A-1. The prosecution was able to prove that the death of the deceased was nothing but under normal circumstances. The prosecution was further able to prove that soon before death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant with a demand for dowry or in connection with dowry.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution categorically established the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that A-1 subjected the deceased to mental and physical harassment and subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC? 2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that death of the deceased was dowry death on account of the harassment meted out to her in the hands of the appellant (A-1)? 3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution proved that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the river on account of the commission of suicide. The prosecution was able to prove that the death of the deceased was nothing but under normal circumstances. The prosecution was further able to prove that soon before death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant with a demand for dowry or in connection with dowry. The prosecution categorically established the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - 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 No.1 in Sessions Case No.103 of 2007, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore (for short, "the learned Additional Sessions Judge?), challenging the judgment, dated 23.05.2009, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC?), questioned him about the quantum of sentence, and thereafter sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 304-B IPC. By the same judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused Nos.2 and 3 not guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and acquitted them under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
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.103 of 2007 arose out of PRC No.92 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore (for short, "the learned Magistrate?) pertaining to Crime No.16 of 2006 of Nellore Rural Police Station.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet, filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural Sub-Division, Nellore in the above Crime, is as follows:
A-1 is resident of II Street, Harinathapuram, Nellore. A-2 and A-3 are the residents of Kota of Nellore District. A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3, who are the husband and wife. The deceased by name Sarangam Anuradha was resident of Harinathapuram at the time of her death. She is the wife of A-1 and daughter-in-law of A-2 and A-3. She was subjected to dowry harassment by A-1 to A-3 prior to her death. She died on 22.01.2006 at 11:00 a.m. by jumping and drowning in Penna River near Venkateswarapuram, outskirts area of Nellore City. LW.1 - Mandava Rani, resident of Nellore Town and Corporator of 1st Division, is the de-facto complainant.
LW.6 - K. Ravindra Babu and LW.7 - K. Sujatha belonged to Gundalammapalem of Kodavalur Mandal in Nellore District and they settled at Hyderabad doing the job of plying Auto. They have one son i.e., LW.8 - K. Raja Sekhar and one daughter i.e., the deceased by name Anuradha. They performed the marriage of their deceased daughter with A-1 on 28.01.2004 in D.N.R. Community Hall of Gudur Town in the presence of A-2, A-3 and others. On demand made by all the accused, they gave them dowry of Rs.60,000/- and 14 sovereigns of gold. A cash of Rs.15,000/- was also paid to the accused towards household articles. LW.11 - P. Ramesh Babu and LW.12 - Sarangam Anjani Kumar settled the said marriage. After marriage, the deceased joined with A-1. Both A-1 and the deceased were residing in a rented house in Harinathapuram of Nellore along with A-2 and A-3 and their daughter. Three or four months subsequent to the marriage, A-1 to A-3 started demanding the deceased to get additional dowry from her parents. They subjected her to harassment mentally and physically for more dowry. Deceased used to reveal the same to LWs.6 and 7, her parents, and LW.8, her brother, whenever she visited her parents house at Hyderabad. In the year 2004, when she became pregnant, LW.6 paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused as additional dowry. Even after the deceased gave birth to a male child, accused subjected her to dowry harassment. In May, 2005, LW.6 paid another sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused. Subsequently, A-2 and A-3 shifted their
Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (2011) 12 SCC 408
Raman Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 35
The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and others (2004) 4 SCC 470
The prosecution categorically established the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that the elements of dowry harassment and subsequent suicide were proven, justifying the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
The court established that the accused's demand for additional dowry and the resulting harassment led to the victim's death, satisfying the criteria for dowry death under IPC Section 304-B.
The judgment established the application of statutory presumptions and the proximity test in proving dowry death, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused for facts within their exclusive knowl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the live link between dowry harassment and the co....
The judgment reaffirms the legal principle that the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B of IPC and can strengthen its case with the statutory presumpti....
The prosecution established that the accused subjected the deceased to continuous harassment for dowry, leading to her suicide within seven years of marriage, warranting conviction under Section 304-....
Point of law: To indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally implied that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There mu....
The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Sec. 304-B, and once proved, the presumption under Sec. 113-B comes into play. The accused can then attempt to displace the deemed c....
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.
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.