THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363 OF 2018

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed questioning the conviction imposed against the appellant/accused vide Judgment dated 30.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.199 of 2012 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Smt.Shilolla Mamatha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) married the accused on 26.01.2012. At the time of marriage Rs.20,000/- cash and household utensils etc., were given to the accused as dowry. For one month they led marital life happily, thereafter, the accused started harassing deceased to get money for purchase of motorcycle. The said harassment was informed to PW.1 and others. Then, the deceased went to the house of PW.1 and the accused also followed her. The accused and deceased stayed in the said house for some time. Thereafter, the accused left stating that she has to purchase the motorcycle for him. On the next day of the accused leaving, the deceased committed suicide in the house of PW.1 by hanging herself. Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged with the police by PW.1. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

3. Learned Sessions Judge found that the death of the deceased was on account of suicide for the reason of harassment by the accused and accordingly, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven (07) years for the offence under Section 304B of IPC.

4. During the course of trial, PW.1, father of the deceased, PW.2, mother of the deceased, PW.3 independent witness, PWs.4 and 5 neighbourers of PW.1 stated before the Court below during their chief-examination about the alleged harassment for motorcycle. Cross-examination of witnesses was deferred at request. Thereafter, all the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5, during the course of their cross-examinations, nearly two months from the date of chief-examination, have stated that the deceased hanged herself on account of the chronic stomach pain which she was suffering from. PWs.1 to 5 stated that no dowry was given to the accused and the statement made in chief-examination was not voluntarily but due to the force of police.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that the witnesses must have been won over after the cross examination of witnesses was deferred. For the reason of demanding motorcycle and failure to meet the said demand since the deceased was harassed, the accused was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. PWs.1 to 5 though initially stated regarding the harassment for motorcycle, however, totally contradicted their own statement made in chief-examination during the cross-examination. The prosecution has not taken any steps to declare the witnesses as hostile. It was not even suggested that the accused has won over the witnesses during the period in between chief-examination and cross-examination.

7. The evidence of such self-condemned and self- contradictory witnesses, who have no respect for truth, cannot be relied upon by the Court, coming to the rescue of prosecution that they were won over after their chief- examination. The prosecution, as already stated did not take any steps to cross-examine the witnesses or suggest any reasons for their hostility in their cross-examination.

8. The judgment reported in Mahendra Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2022 Live Law (SC) 543], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there would be three types of witnesses namely (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. All the witnesses-PWs.1 to 5 were in the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. There is no corroboration from any other source of oral or documentary evidence in support of the version of PWs.1 to 5 spoke