Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
G. Sri Devi, J.
Boddupally Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2020
Decided on : 22-04-2021
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death – Ingredients – There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death – If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of woman concerned, it would be of no consequence – There must be material to show that soon before her death victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment – Prosecution has to rule out possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within purview of ‘death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances’ – Expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where Section 113-B of Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service – Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates – Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution – ‘Soon before’ is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before occurrence – It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in importance of a proximity test both for proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act. (Paras 19 and 20)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-B, 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 4 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death and cruelty – Conviction and sentence – Acquittal of co-accused – There are several material variations, contradictions and omissions in evidence of PWs which would go to root of case – From a perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, essential ingredient, which is necessary to attract offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. i.e., deceased was subjected to cruelty by appellant, soon before her death in demand of dowry is lacking – As such, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. – Evidence is not wholly reliable with regard to demand of dowry soon before death of deceased – If that evidence is eschewed from consideration appellant cannot be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant/A1 for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Dowry death requires a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the woman. The evidence must establish that cruelty or harassment was inflicted soon before her death, and the term "soon before" is relative, depending on the circumstances of each case (!) (!) .
The prosecution must prove that the death occurred under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives in connection with dowry demands. The evidence should show a direct link between cruelty and the death, and the cruelty must have been recent enough to disturb her mental equilibrium (!) (!) - (!) .
The evidence in this case did not sufficiently establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment immediately before her death. Medical and circumstantial evidence indicated that she died due to breathing problems while engaged in routine activities, which does not fulfill the requirement of "soon before" the death in relation to dowry harassment (!) - (!) (!) - (!) .
The presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which applies when a woman dies within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment shortly before her death, is not automatically applicable unless the prosecution proves the proximity of cruelty to death. The evidence must demonstrate a live-link, which was lacking in this case (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding demand for additional dowry, including monetary and material possessions, was inconsistent, contradictory, and lacked corroboration. The initial statements of the witnesses did not support the claim of ongoing dowry harassment, and some evidence suggested that the demand was fabricated after the death (!) (!) (!) - (!) .
The medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering, but the circumstances did not convincingly connect this to dowry harassment or cruelty inflicted immediately before death. The evidence did not establish that the death was caused by cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands (!) - (!) .
The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, with several witnesses providing inconsistent accounts. The absence of direct eyewitness testimony and discrepancies in the evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's claims, leading to the conclusion that the accused was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) - (!) .
The evidence regarding the initial complaint and the alleged demand for dowry was found to be unreliable. The complaint was drafted by a person not examined as a witness, and the evidence did not conclusively prove ongoing dowry harassment or demand at the relevant time (!) (!) .
The court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements required for conviction under the relevant sections related to dowry death and cruelty. As a result, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to the acquittal and setting aside of the conviction and sentence (!) (!) .
The case highlights the importance of establishing a clear and proximate link between cruelty or harassment and the death of the woman, emphasizing that mere suspicion or inconsistent testimony cannot suffice for conviction under dowry-related laws.
JUDGMENT
G. Sri Devi, J.—Accused No. 1, in Sessions Case No. 178 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. He along with two others, were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. By its judgment, dated 30.12.2019, the learned trial Judge while acquitting A-2 and A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., convicted A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, according to the evidence let in during the course of trial, is that one Ashwini (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was the elder daughter of P.W. 1-Mididoddi Ramachandru and she was given in marriage to A-1 three years prior to the date of offence. At the time of marriage, P.W. 1 presented cash of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, 5 ½ tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles. Immediately after the marriage, the deceased was taken to the house of the accused and there, A-1 and the deceased lived happily for four months and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and one motorcycle. On the demand made by A-1 to A-3, P.W. 1 informed to the deceased and A-1 to A-3 that he will arrange the additional dowry of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and motorcycle to A-1 at the time of Sankranthi festival. Three days thereafter, P.W. 1 received a phone call from the younger brother of A-1 that the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received injuries and she was admitted in Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and immediately, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 went to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, but they did not find the deceased in the hospital. The R.M.P. doctor of Korlapahad Village, informed them that the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nakrekal, then they went there and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries on the right shoulder and chest.
3. On 09.11.2013, P.W. 1 lodged a report (Ex. P1) with P.W. 26-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Basing on the said report, P.W. 26 registered a case in Crime No. 157 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of I.P.C. and issued Ex. P24-First Information Report. He recorded the statement of PW. 1 and sent the F.I.R. to all the concerned. On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W. 27-the Inspector of Police, took up investigation and proceeded to the Primary Health Centre, Nakrekal, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws. 19 to 22. Ex. P18 is the inquest report. During the inquest, P.W. 12 (trained constable) photographed and videographed the dead body and P.W. 19 seized M.Os. 1 to 4 in the presence of P.Ws. 16 and 20. Thereafter, P.W. 27 proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws. 17 and 18 and also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which are placed on record as Exs. P26 and P27. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6 at the scene of offence. Later, the dead body was sent to Community Health Ce
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
