THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.679 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant/accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in S.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.03.2012 at 10:00 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station, Sirgapur stating that her elder daughter marriage Pavithra (herein after referred as deceased) was performed with Durga Goud/accused No.1 on 27.02.2011. At the time of marriage, the complainant presented Rs.1,00,000/- towards cash, 5 tulas of gold and other household articles. The deceased and accused No.1 lead happy marital life for three months. Thereafter, the deceased was harassed by accused No.1 and his family members to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. When the complainant expressed her inability to pay such huge amount, on 09.03.2012, accused Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Hanuman Goud, who is the brother of accused No.1 beat the deceased and made her to consume pesticide poison and killed her and created a scene that she herself committed suicide. The accused persons also snatched the gold ornaments of the deceased. Hence, the complaint.

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by the complainant case in Crime No.25 of 2012 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3. After recording the statements of witnesses and collecting the documents, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court, which was taken cognizance as S.C.No.42 of 2013.

5. On appearance, charges under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.10.

7. After hearing the parties on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court passed the following judgment:

“22. In view of the discussion and conclusion under point No.2, this court opines that the offence punishable under section 306 I.P.C also stands not proved. To prove abetment, either the ingredients of section 107 IPC or section 113-B of The Evidence Act, as the case may be, have to be proved. Section 107 requires instigation or intentional aiding or engaging with others to do a thing, which is absolutely absent in this case. For the presumption adumbrated under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, to operate, the ingredients to be proved are same as under section 304-B, which already are held as not proved.

23. The offence punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, requires taking of dowry. But, the fact that admittedly the marriage of the couple was performed at the house of the accused, and as admitted by PW1, it is because of her financial incapacity, does not support giving of dowry at the time of marriage. Moreover, it being a monetary transaction requires a better proof than the oral evidence of the witnesses. Hence, the offence punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has to be held as not proved.

24. As it is concluded that the offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C is proved as against A1, it also goes to prove the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as there was demand of dowry.

25. Hence, this court opines that the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1, for the offences punishable under sections

498-A I.P.C and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt, while the other offences punishable under sections 302, 304-B, 306 I.P.C and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are not proved against him. However, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of A2 and A3 for any the offences punishable under section