IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Kotakonda Dharmaiah - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2010
Decided On : 13-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. the court reviews the judgment and proceedings leading to the appeal. (Para 3) |
| 3. facts surrounding the death of the victim and initial investigations are presented. (Para 5) |
| 4. procedural developments and challenges in establishing the timeline of events. (Para 6) |
| 5. scope of the appeal and identification of parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. points of determination in the appeal. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. defense argues the prosecution's failure to establish key elements of the case. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. arguments related to dowry harassment and proof of death circumstances. (Para 49 , 50 , 61) |
| 9. the court affirms the prosecution's argument linking harassment to the victim's death. (Para 54) |
| 10. conclusion upholding conviction and appeal's dismissal. (Para 62 , 63 , 64) |
JUDGMENT
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - The judgment, dtd. 6/8/2010, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati (for short, "the learned Additional Sessions Judge"), is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, who was the unsuccessful accused No.1 in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. The appellant herein (A-1) faced trial under Sec. 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, "the IPC") before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he was found guilty of the charge under Sec. 304-B IPC as such he was convicted under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years.
3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
4. The Sessions Case No.25 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in Preliminary Registration Case (PRC) No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati (for short, "the learned Magistrate") pertaining to Crime No.6 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station, Chittoor District for the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC.
5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Tirupati (LW.23) filed charge sheet in Crime No.6 of 2007 of Chandragiri Police Station alleging the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet, is as follows:
(i) The marriage of K. Varalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was celebrated with one K. Dharmaiah (A-1) 6 years prior to the incident, as per the Hindu rites and customs. At that time, parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.30, 000.00 and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments, apart from the household articles. After marriage, the deceased joined with the company of accused and lived happily for 10 days. Later, all the accused started harassing the deceased for want of additional articles and Ugadi Sangyam. The parents of the deceased failed to comply their demand. On that count, accused continuously harassed the deceased both physically and mentally. In this connection, Dalavayi Mani Kumar @ Mani (LW.6) and Pediri Krishna Reddy (LW.7) held mediation many times but in vain. The sister-in-law of the deceased viz., Rekha also threatened the deceased for want of additional dowry and instigated accused No.1 to demand additional amounts from the deceased. Deceased informed her parents about the harassment made by all the accused. Ultimately, unable to bear with the harassment, the deceased, on 8/1/2007, committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. Having come to know about the incident, Valipi Nagamma (LW.1), mother of the deceased, presented a report to the Police. (ii) On the strength of the report made by the mother of deceased, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandragiri Police Station (LW.22), registered the report as a case in Crime No.6 of 2007 for the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC and submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned. The SDPO, Tirupati (LW.23), during
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Sher Singh alias Partapa v. State of Haryana
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab {(2015) 6 SCC 477 : (2015) 3 SCC (Crl.) 225
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-....
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 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 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 requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.
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 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 prosecution categorically established the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction upheld - Dowry death - there was persistent demand of dowry made by accused from the victim who was used to subjected to cruelty and harassment for such demand and ultimately she had ended....
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....
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.