Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
M. Sudarshan Goud & others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2008
Decided On : 24-04-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Surender
Point of Law
Section 4 of the Act, 1961 deals with penalty for demanding dowry, and as per which, if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Section 4 - Sections 498- A and 306 IPC - It is relevant to note that originally Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad charged accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’). Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, 1961. The trial Court also acquitted accused Nos.3 and 5 for the charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1961- Held, The trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. There is no specific finding given by the trial Court with regard to the alleged demand of dowry by the appellants in connection with the marriage of the parties. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the alleged demand of dowry by the accused is at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1. The said alleged demand is also not in connection with the marriage of the parties herein viz., the deceased and accused No.1. the trial Court having acquitted all the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, 1961 - The conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 against the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is unsustainable, both on the facts and in law. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants have demanded dowry in connection with the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt - The impugned judgment dated 14.10.2008, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.253 of 2008, convicting the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby set aside and accordingly, they are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled - Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. (Paras 50,51,52)
Facts of the case:
It is relevant to note that originally Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad charged accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’). Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, 1961. The trial Court also acquitted accused Nos.3 and 5 for the charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1961.
Finding of The Court:
The conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 4 of the Act, 1961 against the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 is unsustainable, both on the facts and in law. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants have demanded dowry in connection with the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt - the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2008, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.253 of 2008, convicting the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby set aside and accordingly, they are acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the judgment, dated 14.10.2008, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.253 of 2008, the appellants - Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each.
3. It is relevant to note that originally Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad charged accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’). Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, 1961. The trial Court also acquitted accused Nos.3 and 5 for the charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1961.
4. According to the prosecution, on 26.07.2007 at about 12.00 noon, a Telugu written report was filed by the complainant (Accused No.1) stating that on 25.07.2007 at about 16:30 hours, his wife (deceased0 locked the house and handed over the keys to one Latha by informing her that she was going to purchase vegetables. Thereafter she did not return. The complainant searched for his wife in the house of his relatives, but could not trace her out.
5. Basing on the said complaint, Narayanaguda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2007 under the head ‘Woman Missing’.
6. According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2007 at about 9.00 a.m., PW.6, Supervisor of St. Anthony’s High School, Himayathnagar, came to the Police Station, Narayanaguda and informed that he found female deadbody in Ashoknagar Drainage Nala situated behind their school. The police rushed to the spot and got the dead body removed from the Canal. Thereafter, PW.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, secured the presence of Accused No.1 and got the dead body identified as that of his wife.
7. According to the prosecution, on 27.07.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., a Telugu written report was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 on 20.03.1992 with dowry of Rs.10,000/-, one and half tolas of gold and 10 tolas of silver. The couple lived happily till they were blessed with one son. Thereafter, all the accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. During the marriage of sister of the deceased, her in-laws demanded additional dowry and did not attend the marriage. In that regard, the complainant (father of deceased) made several attempts to pacify the matter. He has also promised to arrange the amount from his retirement benefits. But, there is no change in the attitude of the accused and they have continued the said the harassment demanding additional dowry. As such, the deceased attempted to suicide by pouring kerosene on her body.
8. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1 from his retirement benefits. But, after few months, the accused viz., husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, her husband and brother of accused No.1 again started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. On 25.07.2007 at about 19.00 hours, the complainant was informed by accused No.1 that his daughter (deceased) was not available at the house and her whereabouts were not known. On that, he searched for her but could not trace her out. On 27.07.2007, he received message from accused No.1 that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a nala of Ashok Nagar. On that, the complainant and his family rushed to the spot and identified the dead body.
9. Basing on the said complaint and statement of the
