SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 317

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
Pasuladi Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2009
Decided on : 11-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.Prabhakar Reddy

Point of law: Four prerequisites for convicting an accused for offence punishable under Section 304-B are as follows: (i) that death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance; (ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage; (iii) that woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at hands of her husband, soon before her death; and (iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B, 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B –Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 4 – Criminal Appeal - Demand of dowry – Penalty for demanding dowry – Dowry death – Dying Declaration - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - P.Ws.1 and 2 are parents of deceased, who is wife of appellant/accused. Both deceased and appellant eloped and got married - Three months after marriage, they returned to village and started living together in house of appellant - Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act for reason of deceased dying of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, appellant has failed to discharge his burden (Para 6).

Finding of court :

Deceased demanding appellant to get interest amount, there was quarrel between them and for which reason, she threatened appellant that she would commit suicide and accordingly, poured kerosene on herself and lit fire. There is no whisper of any kind of harassment for additional dowry or that appellant had asked deceased or her parents to bring any dowry. When complaint was lodged with delay of three days, without narrating any instance of dowry demand and also several improvements made during course of their evidence before Court contradicting one another, such evidence regarding demand for dowry cannot be believed.

Results: Criminal Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six weeks for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused is further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and the appellant is further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Jyothi, who is the wife of the appellant/accused. Both the deceased and the appellant eloped and got married elsewhere in the month of December 2006. Three months after the marriage, they returned to the village and started living together in the house of the appellant.

3. P.W.1 and others did not oppose the marriage as they belong to same community. However, the appellant started harassing the deceased to get the dowry from P.W.1. According to P.W.1, he was prepared to marry the deceased with another person namely Yadagiri giving dowry of Rs.1,40,000/-. The appellant started harassing the deceased to get Rs.1,40,000/- from P.W.1. He started beating the deceased and ultimately on 09.06.2007 at 9.00 p.m, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents have exaggerated regarding their alleged demand of dowry, which is not found in the complaint Ex.P1 which was lodged at the earliest point of time except stating vaguely that there was demand for dowry. No specific instance or the quantum of dowry was mentioned in the complaint. The crucial evidence is the dying declaration recorded under Ex.P6 by the Magistrate-P.W.9. In the said Dying Declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant fought with the deceased and beat her. The father of the appellant gave Rs.5,000/- to the appellant, the appellant gave the said amount to his friend and failed to collect interest. When the deceased questioned the appellant and for the said reason, there was a quarrel and accordingly, she threatened that she would pour kerosene on herself and though poured kerosene on herself, the appellant did not pay attention. The deceased further stated that when she stated that she was going to lit herself, even then the appellant did not stop her and when she lit herself, the neighbours came there and took her to the hospital.

5. Counsel submits that the Dying Declaration is totally contradictory to what the witnesses stated regarding dowry. There is no mention of any dowry in the Dying Declaration. Even according to her declaration she committed suicide but her parents stated that appellant burnt her. In the said circumstances, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a presumption that is raised under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the reason of the deceased dying of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, the appellant has failed to discharge his burden and for the said reason, conviction under Section 304-B of IPC cannot be set aside.

7. The alleged incident of the deceased setting herself on fire and attempting suicide was on 09.06.2007 and the Dying Declaration was recorded on 11.06.2007. The complaint, Ex.P1 was filed on 12.06.2007. The deceased died on 15.06.2007. The complaint Ex.P1 was lodged after three days of the incident. In the said complaint P.W.1 has not mentioned anything about the dowry that was demanded by the appellant. It is stated in Ex.P1 complaint that the deceased informed P.W.1 that the appellant was asking for dowry and t

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top