IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, A. Abhishek Reddy, JJ.
Puttoju Chandra Shekar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2014
Decided On : 19-02-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B and 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Evidence Act - Section 113B - Dowry death - Harassment – Evidence - Charged - Challenged - Five daughters, in which he performed his second daughter, by name marriage with Shekar on at TTD, as per caste customs and rituals prevailed in their community - At time of marriage, he gave net cash, eight tolas Golden ornaments, twenty tolas of Silver ornaments and house articles - After one week of marriage, started harassment on his daughter physically and mentally by beating and abusing for additional dowry and Passion Plus motor cycle and do witchcraft with one on her daughter and threatened and harassed her and made abortion of her three months pregnancy and aforesaid persons confined her in house - On at night 7:00 to 8:30 p.m phoned to his son-in-law and abused him in filthy language and told to take away her - In early hours, aforesaid persons, strangulated her and poured kerosene on her and set fire and shifted her to Hospital, Hospital - Later they informed them through mediators that they shifted her to Gandhi Hospital – Held, Court is with regard to the sentence to be imposed upon appellant for said offence - Section 304-B IPC prescribes minimum and maximum sentence, which may be imposed upon an accused - Since minimum and maximum sentences are prescribed, maximum sentence should be imposed in "rarest of rare case", and not at drop of hat - Some cogent reasons had to be given by learned Trial Court for prescribing harshest punishment for said offence - However, a bare perusal of impugned judgment clearly reveals that no such reasons have been assigned by learned Trial Court for imposing harshest punishment of life imprisonment - Said conversation between appellant, and (P.W. 5) took place just a day prior to incident - Therefore, learned Trial Court is justified in convicting appellant for offence - However, learned Trial Court is unjustified in imposing harshest penalty of life imprisonment upon appellant - While this Court upholds conviction of appellant for offence but reduces sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment - Fine amount and default sentence is confirmed - Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court against appellant for offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is also confirmed - Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - The appellant, Puttoju Chandra Shekar (A-1), has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 24.07.2014, passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant of offences under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act while acquitting A.2 to A.7 for the said offences. For offence under Section 304-B IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and fined with Rs. 5,000/-, and further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of six months in default thereof. For offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and fined with Rs. 3,000/-, and further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of one month in default thereof. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 30.09.2011, around 09:00 a.m., Basavoju Vishnu Murthy (P.W. 4) submitted a report (Ex. P.4) at the Nagarkurnool Police Station wherein he stated that "he is having five daughters, in which he performed his second daughter, by name Kavyasree @ Anitha marriage with Puttoju Chandra Shekar, S/o. Sheshaiah Chary, R/o. Lingal on 27.02.2011 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Nagarkurnool as per the caste customs and rituals prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage, he gave Rs. 2,50,000/- net cash, eight tolas Golden ornaments, twenty tolas of Silver ornaments and house articles. After one week of the marriage, started harassment on his daughter physically and mentally by beating and abusing for additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Her husband, mother, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws i.e. 1) Puttoju Chandra Shekar, S/o. Sheshaiah Chary, age 27 years, Occ: Gold business, 2) Puttoju Jagadambha, W/o. Shashaiah Chary, age 60 years, Occ: housewife, 3) Puttoju Srinivasulu, S/o. Shashaiah Chary, age 45 years, Occ: Gold business, 4) Puttoju Laxmana Chary, S/o. Sheshaiah Chary, age 42 years, Occ: Gold business, 5) Puttoju Murali, S/o. Sheshaiah Chary, age 33 years, Occ: Gold business, 6) Eshwaramma, age 37 years, all R/o. Lingal Village, 7) Bhagyamma, W/o. Krishnaiah, age 30 years, R/o. Rakonda, 8) Krishnaiah, R/o. Rakonda, 9) Puttoju Bharathamma, W/o. Srinu, age 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Lingal, 10) Puttoju Chandrakala, W/o. Laxmana Chary, age: 37 years, R/o. Lingal, 11) Puttoju Anuradha, W/o. Murali, age 34 years, R/o. Lingal were living together in the house. After one week of the marriage, started harassment on his daughter physically and mentally by beating and abusing for additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and Passion Plus motor cycle and do the witchcraft with one Krishnamachary on her daughter and threatened and harassed her and made abortion of her three months pregnancy and aforesaid persons confined her in the house. On 28.09.2011, at night 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., Puttoju Chandra Shekar phoned to his son-in-law Karunachary and abused him in filthy language and told to take away her. In the early hours, the aforesaid persons, strangulated her and poured kerosene on her and set fire and shifted her to Achampet Hospital, Kamineni Hospital, L.B. Nagar, Omni Hospital, Kothapet. Later they informed them through mediators that they shifted her to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. But, the OP Department declared her as dead at 1:25 p.m. and they abandoned the dead body at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and left from that place".
3. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR No.44 of 2011 (Ex. P.10) for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC. The investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, J. Chennaiah, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (P.W. 13) filed an alteration memo (Ex. P.12) by adding Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the names of A.2, A.6 to A.8 were deleted from the case. While the appe
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.