Allowed

A.Chakradhar, Chittoor Dist. v. P.P., Hyd

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Mar 2024CRLA/848/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal appeals and acquitted the appellants of charges under IPC Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand of additional dowry soon before death or transfer of money, thus failing to attract the presumption of Section 113-B Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of all charges; sentence and conviction set aside; bail bonds cancelled for accused No. 2.

A.Chakradhar, Chittoor Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶6

CRLA.NOS.848 of 2016 AND 849 OF 2016

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 848 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in S.C.No.423 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

A.Chakradhar, S/o. Late A. Srinivasacharyulu, Aged about 25 yrs, R/o. D.No. 2-995, Readspet, Kamalambal Street, Kongarddipalle, Chittoor District

¶11

...Appellant/Accused No.1

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, in the High Court of Judicature at Hydearbad for the State of Telangana^andthe State of Andhra Pradesh

¶14

...Respondent/Complainant

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fCRLAMP. NO: 1326 OF 20161

¶16

Petition under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed on dated 26.08.2016 in S.C.No.423 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District, and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal appeal.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 430 OF 2017)

¶18

■' ,

¶19

Petition under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C praying that in the •- ;Circurastances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High •: Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of ^ sentence passed on dt.26-08-2016 in S.C.No. 423 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/appellant herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in SC No. 423 of 2012 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge. Chittoor, dt. 26.8.2016, pending disposal of the CrI.A. No. 848 of 2016 and enlarge the petitioner/Accused in bail.

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 849 OF 2016

¶23

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in S.C.no.423 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶24

Between:

¶25

A.Rajeswari Devi, W/o. Late A.Srinivasacharyulu, Aged^about52 yrs. R/o. D.No. 2-995, Readspet, Kamalambal Street, Kongarddipalle Chittoor District

¶26

...Appellant/Accused No.2

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana^andthe State of Andhra Pradesh

¶29

...Respondent/Complainant

¶30

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fCRLAMP. NO: 1327 OF 2016)

¶31

Petition under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed on dated 26.08.2016 in S.C.No.423 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶32

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri. T Nagarjuna Reddy

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶34

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶35

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶36

AND

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.LN.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶38

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 848 AND 849 OF 2016

¶39

COMMON JUDGMENT: {per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Redd'/) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 423 of 2012^on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor (for short, 'the trial Court'), are the appellants^{inCriminalAppeal} Nos. 848 and 849 of 2016 respectively. Since both these^appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Accused^Nos. 1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court under the following five

¶40

charges:

¶41

I charge was under Section 302 IPC against both the accused; II charge was under Section 304-B IPC against both^the accused;

¶42

III charge was under Section 498-A IPC against both^the accused;

¶43

IV charge was under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act against both the accused; and

¶44

V charge was under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against both the accused. 2. The substance of the charges is that prior to and on 05-09-2011, accused Nos. 1 and 2, being husband and mother-iniaw of one Divya Madhuri (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') respectively, subjected the deceased to harassment and crueity demanding her to bring additionai dowry^and two house plots situated at Hyderabad from her parents and being unable to bear the harassment, the deceased died on 05-09-2011 at the house of accused No. 2 by hanging herself to a ceiling fan, died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶45

After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused No. 1 under charge Nos. 2 to 5. Under charge No. 2, accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life; under charge No. 3, accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in

¶46

¶47

default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month; under charge No. 4, accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment^fora period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and under charge No. 5, accused No. 1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, while acquitting him of charge No. 1. The trial Court convicted accused No. 2 under charge No. 4 and sentenced^herto suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years apd also^to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, and also convicted her under charge^No.5and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default^tosuffer simple imprisonment for one month while acquitting her of charge Nos. 2 and 3.

¶48

Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶49

P.Ws.l and 2 performed marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 on 25-06-2011 at All India Arya Vysya Samajam,

¶50

Tirumala, as per Hindu rites and customs. P.Ws.l and 2 gave 500 Grams of goid, 2 Kiiograms of siiver and aiso an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of marriage apart from paying^another Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After marriage, the deceased joined the matrimoniai home aiong with accused No. 1 at Bengaiuru and iived happiiy for a period of one month. Thereafter, accused No. 1 used to harass the deceased both physicaiiy^and mentaiiy demanding her to bring an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-^and aiso to get two house piots situated at Hyderabad registered in his name. The deceased informed the same over phone to P.W.l who consoied the deceased and advised her to adjust with him to iead happy maritai iife. It is aiso the case of prosecution that accused No. 2 used to visit the house of accused No. 1 at Bengaiuru^and both of them used to harass the deceased to bring additionai dowry and to get two house piots situated at Hyderabad registered in the name of accused No. 1. On 23-08-2011, the deceased visited the house of her parents at Hyderabad. She compiained that accused No. 1 was harassing her both physicaiiy and mentaiiy and sent her with a demand to get two house piots registeredⁱⁿ

¶51

¶52

his name apart from bringing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 26-08-2011, accused No. 1 visited the house of P.Ws.l^and2at Hyderabad and stayed there for three days. On 26-08-2011 itself, accused No. 1 promised P.Ws.l and 2 that if P.Ws.l and 2 register two house plots in his name and also pay an amount of Rs.200,000/-, he will discontinue the illegal intimacy with Lavanya of Kadiri Town and lead happy marital life with the deceased, for which P.Ws.l and 2 stated that they would fulfil his^demands within four months. On 28-08-2011, accused No. 1 along^withthe deceased went to Bengaluru. Thereafter, there was no complaint from the deceased. While so, on 05-09-2011, the deceased telephoned P.W.l and informed him that she and accused^No. 1 were going to the house of accused No. 2 at Baireddipalli Village, where accused No. 2 was doing her job. On 06-09-2011^atabout 11 a.m., one C.Prabhuram (L.W.9), who is owner of the^housein which accused No. 2 was residing, telephoned P.W.l^andinformed him about the death of the deceased. Having received phone call. P.Ws.l to 4 went to Baireddipalli and found the deceased hanging to a ceiling fan. At about 4 a.m., P.W.l went to police^stationand

¶53

¶54

gave Ex.Pl-written complaint. Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶55

Baireddipalli Police Staiton-P.W.13 received Ex.PI from P.W.l and registered the same as a case in crime No. 84 of 2011 of Baireddipalli Police Station for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos. 1 and 2. P.W.13 issued copies^ofFIRtoaii the concerned. Ex.P7 is copy of FIR. After registering the crime, P.W.13 informed the same to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner, who was examined as P.W.14. P.W.14 instructed P.W.13 to send a requisition to Tahsildar, Baireddipalli, for conducting inquest. Immediately, the Tahsildar, Baireddipalli Mandal-P.W.ll proceeded to the house of accused No. 2 and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. P.W.ll conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and others from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. During the inquest, P.W.ll recorded statements of P.Ws.l and 2 and two others. In the inquest, the mediators unanimously opined^thatthe deceased committed suicide unable to bear the cruelty at the hands of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Inquest report is marked as

¶56

¶57

EX.P5. After inquest, the dead body was sent to Area Hospital for conducting post mortem. P.W.ll secured the presence^ofP.Ws.l to 6 and recorded their statements. P.W.lO-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Palamaner, conducted autopsy^overthe dead body of the deceased between 12 noon and 3.30 p.m. on 07-09-2011. P.W.IO opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia in view of hanging and further opined that^thetimeof death was 36 to 48 hours prior to his examination, P.W.IO accordingly issued Lx.?e-post mortem certificate.

¶58

On 12-09-2011 at about 5 p.m., P.W.14 arrested accused No. 1 at RTC Bus Stand, Palamaner. On 17-09-2011, P.W.14^went to Bengaluru and recorded statements of P.Ws.7 and 12. P.W.14 sent M.Os.l to 3 to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. On 09-12-2011, P.W.14 arrested accused No. 2. After completion^of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet.

¶59

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l^to 14 and got marked Exs.Pl to PIO apart from exhibiting^M.Os.lto 12.

¶60

¶61

When accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing agaii^st them. On behalf of defence, accused No. 1 was examined as D.W.l and got marked Exs.Dl to D8.

¶62

Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 and 12, the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 as stated supra.

¶63

Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsaccused Nos. 1 and 2, would strenuously contend that there is absolutely no material to show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 harassed the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her to bring an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also to get two house plots registered in the name of accused No. 1; that the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 is inconsistent to each other and there are lot of improvements in their evidence; that the prosecution changed its version at different stages; that the couple lived happily and the deceased committed suicide within 2 V2 months from the date of marriage; that there was no harassment on the part^ofaccused

¶64

¶65

Nos. 1 and 2 soon before death of the deceased; that the prosecution did not produce any material to show that^anamount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred to the account of^accusedNo. 1 and there is no material placed by the prosecution^toshowthat P.Ws.l and 2 are having house plots at Hyderabad and^thatwhen there was no demand for dowry at the time of marriage, question of demand for additional dowry does not arise to make^outacase under Section 304-B IPC. In support of his contentions,^learned senior counsel places reliance on Phuiei Singh Vs.^Stateof Haryana^) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra and another^) Satbir Singh and another Vs. Sate of Haryana^] and GurmeetSingh Vs. State ofPunjab"^.

¶66

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing^for the respondent-state vehemently opposed the appeals on the grounds that the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 and 12 is^{consistentand} there is nothing to disbelieve their version and that^{theevidenceof}

¶67

^ (2023) 10 see 268 2 (2022) 5 see 401

¶68

^ (2021) 6 see 1 (2021) 6 see 108

¶69

¶70

P.Ws.l to 4 and 12 has clinchingly established the^factum of demand made by accused Nos. 1 and 2 soon before death^ofthe deceased and as such, the ingredients of the offence^underSection 304-B IPC are attracted and accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not rebutted the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian^Evidence Act. He therefore prays for dismissal of both the appeals by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by^{thetrialCourt.}

¶71

We have perused the entire material available on record. In the FIR, which is the earliest version of P.W.l, it^{isnotstatedthat} accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded dowry at the time of marriage. It is stated in FIR that P.Ws.l and 2 gave 500 Grams of gold, 2 Kilograms of silver, Rs.5,00,000/- cash and another^amountof Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses at the time of marriage. In Ex.Pl, it is alleged by P.W.l that accused No. 1 was having affair with one Lavanya of Kadiri Town prior to marriage^and accused No. 1 married the deceased only for the sake of money and that having addicted to bad vices, accused No. 1 used to harass the deceased demanding additional dowry. Of course, it is also alleged in Ex.Pl that accused Nos. 1 and 2 used^toharassthe

¶72

¶73

deceased demanding additional dowry along with plots at Hyderabad. Curiously, P.W.l deposed before the trial^Courtthat accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded dowry at the time of marriage and on their demand only, P.W.l gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/-,⁵⁰⁰ Grams of gold and 2 Kilograms of silver to them but^the said demand was absent in the earlier version in Ex.PI. 11. P.W.5, who is owner of the house in which accused No. 2 was residing, in his evidence clearly stated that whenever^accused No. 1 was having leave or holidays, both accused No. 1 and the deceased used to visit the house of accused No. 2 at Baireddipalli. His evidence further disclosed that after seeing the deceased, accused No. 2 fell unconscious and later, she was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Aragonda.

¶74

P.Ws.l to 4 in their evidence specifically stated that^P.W.l transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the account^ofaccused No. 1 but the prosecution did not produce any bank^statement evidencing transfer of Rs.2,00,000/- to the account^ofaccusedNo. 1. Though P.Ws.l to 4 specifically stated that accused^Nos. 1 and

¶75

¶76

2 demanded to get two house plots of P.W.l situated at Hyderabad registered in the name of accused No. 1, the prosecution did not produce any documentary proof to^showthat P.W.l is having two house plots at Hyderabad. Except the /pse dixit of P.Ws.l to 4 that P.W.l transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the account of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded P.W.l to get registered two house plots^inthe name of accused No. 1, the prosecution did not produce any documentary proof to substantiate its contention.

¶77

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the defence of the accused. Accused No. 1 produced Exs.D2 to D8 emails said to have been sent by the deceased to him prior to marriage. In the said emails, the deceased expressed that she did not like to marry accused No. 1 and at one stage, she stated that if accused^No. 1 marries her, she will die. However, all the emails were rightly not considered by the trial Court as they did not meet the requirements of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Of course, accused No. 1, as D.W.l, deposed that the deceased was having love affair with P.W.4 prior to her marriage but P.Ws.l^and 2

¶78

¶79

performed marriage of the deceased with him against^herwishes. Be that as it may, the prosecution has to establish^thefactumof payment of dowry at the time of marriage and also demand of additional dowry«from the deceased soon before her^death. In the citations relied upon by learned senior counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was no harassment made by the^accused soon before death of the deceased demanding additional dowry. In the case on hand, in Ex.PI, P.W.l did not state^{thattheaccused} demanded dowry at the time of marriage. It is only during the course of trial, P.Ws.l to 4 stated that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded dowry which was paid by P.W.l. It is also seen from the evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 that on 23-08-2011,^the deceased visited the house of P.Ws.l and 2 and on 26-08-2011, accused No. 1 also visited the house of P.Ws.l and 2 and thereafter, the deceased and accused No. 1 left Hyderabad^for Bengaluru. Of course, P.Ws.l to 4 stated that on 26-08-2011, accused No. 1 assured P.Ws.l and 2 that he would discontinue the illegal relationship with Lavanya and look after the^deceasedwell on the promise made by the latter that they would arrange^the

¶80

¶81

within four months as demanded by the former. money Thereafter, there was absolutely no allegation made^byP.Ws.lto 4 that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty^demanding additional dowry. It is also seen from the evidence^ofP.Ws.land 2 that on 05-09-2011, the deceased telephoned P.W.l and informed him that she and accused No. 1 were going to Baireddipalli to the house of accused No. 2. At that^{juncturealso,} the deceased did not inform P.W.l about the cruelty^madeby accused Nos. 1 and 2. As such, there was no demand^byaccused Nos. 1 and 2 soon before death of the deceased.

¶82

In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the prosecution is not able to prove the cruelty and harassment on the part of accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanding the deceased^tobring additional dowry and also as the prosecution is not^abletoplace show that P.W.l transferred an amount of any material to Rs.2,00,000/- to the account of accused No. 1 and that^P.W.l is having two house sites at Hyderabad, we are unable^toagreewith

¶83

the version of the prosecution.

¶84

¶85

In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 26-08-2016 in Sessions Case No. 423 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of all the charges. As the appellant-accused No. 1 has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27-09-2021 in I.A.No. 1 of 2021, he is directed to surrender himself before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa District, for completing the formalities for his release. Bail bonds of the appellant-accused No. 2 shall stand cancelled and she Is set at liberty if she is not required in any other

¶86

case. Fine amount paid, if any, by the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall be refunded to them. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.

¶87

\ \ To,

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

SD/- P VENKATA RAMANA JOINT^REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶90

2 ^hL^ud'iclarM ne Judicial Magistrate of First Class Palamaner, Chittoor District.

¶91

1. The Superintendent, District Jail , Chittoor. 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Kadapa s' o': ccrsr? Chittoor District. 7. TWO CCS to TheVlTc l^rsecrr''' Amaravati [OUT] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

¶92