Yarlagadda Srinivasaro (Died) Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried A.1 to A.6. The substance of the charges against the accused is that, on 02.11.2002, at about 08.30 PM, A1 caused the death of his wife namely Yarlagadda Nagabhadra Kumari (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟), thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In the course of same transaction, A2 and A3 in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of the deceased, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Further, A1 to A3, A5 and A6 caused the death of the deceased within seven years of her marriage by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. In the course of same transaction, A1, A4 and A6 caused certain evidence of the said offence to disappear knowingly gave false information with an intention of screening the offender A-1 from legal punishment, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201

¶21

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶22

3

¶23

IPC. A2 to A6 in furtherance of their common intention of screening A1 from legal punishment, harboured or concealed him, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 212 IPC.

¶24

By his judgment dated 27.11.2006, learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1 to A3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and convicted them of the said offence and sentenced them to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years each and also to pay fine of Rs.500/each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. However, A1 to A3 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 201 and 212 IPC and A4 to A6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 201, 212 and 304-B IPC.

¶25

Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence adduced by it, is as under.

¶26

i) All the material prosecution witnesses and accused are residents of Vulavalapudi village, Gudlavalleru Mandal. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents, PW.3 is the brother, PW.9 is the younger sister, and PWs.5, 7 and 8, are related to the deceased. PW.1

¶27

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶28

4

¶29

and A2 are working as Gangmen in Railways. PW.1 and A2 purchased Ac.3.50 cents of land jointly at Gandam village. A2 made a proposal to perform the marriage between PW.1‟s daughter and his son. PW.1 agreed to give Ac.1.75 cents of land, cash of Rs.50,000/- and three (3) Sovereigns of gold to A1 to A3 and Rs.15,000/- to A1‟s sister towards dowry. At the time of marriage, A1 to A3 raised a dispute with regard to dowry of A1‟s sister. In connection with that, dowry amount was enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- to A1‟s sister. Marriage between A1 and the deceased was performed on 07.05.1999. Four days after the deceased joined A1, A1 started demanding to register Ac.1.75 cents of land given to him at the time of marriage in his name and further demanded to pay additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Whenever the deceased comes to the house of PW.1, she used to inform that A1 to A3 were demanding to register the land and to pay the additional dowry. The deceased also informed that A1 to A3 beat her and sent her to the house of PW.1 and at the instigation of A5 and A6, A1 to A3 harassed the deceased in order to see that the land is registered. The deceased stayed in the house of PW.1 for a period of about one year. At that time, A1 gave notice to the deceased asking her to

¶30

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶31

5

¶32

join his company and to lead conjugal life with him. After receipt of notice, PWs.1 and 2, the deceased and some village elders held panchayat and, thereafter, as agreed upon at the time of marriage, PW.1 registered the land in the name of A1 and thereafter the deceased was sent to A1‟s house to lead conjugal life and the deceased led conjugal life for three months. Thereafter, at the instigation of A5 and A6, again A1 to A3 started harassing the deceased demanding cash and gold chain, beat her and caused miscarriage of pregnancy of the deceased. A1 to A3 picked up a quarrel again for not giving additional dowry and gold chain. Four days prior to the death of the deceased, she came to the house of PW.1 and told that A1 to A3 threatened to kill her with kerosene, if she does not comply with their demand. On 03.11.2002, at about 03.00 AM, A1 and two others came to the house of PW.1 and told that the deceased was not found in their house and asked him whether she came to his house. PWs.1 to 3 and their neighbours went to A1‟s house and noticed some bangle pieces, blood stains and silver toe rings in front of the house of A1. PW.1 suspected A1 that something was done to his daughter and asked A6 not to clean the front yard of A1 and not to erase the blood stains, bangle pieces and toe ring on the

¶33

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶34

6

¶35

spot. Later, the deceased was found in the Well of A4. PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report to the police.

¶36

ii) On 03.11.2002, at about 12.30 PM, PW.12, the Head Constable of Gudlavalleru Police Station, on receipt of written report from PW.1, registered a case in Crime No.92 of 2002, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 120-B read with 34 IPC and submitted express FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P17 is the FIR.

¶37

iii) On receipt of requisition from the Inspector of Police, Pamarru, PW.10 the MRO conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 03.11.2002 in the presence of elders. Ex.P15 is the inquest report. During inquest, PW.10 recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2, 9 and others. He also prepared the observation report of the scene of offence under Ex.P16.

¶38

iv) On 03.11.2002, PW.13 the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and visited the scene of offence along with the MRO - PW.10. He examined PWs.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Gudivada for post-mortem examination. As A1 surrendered before the Court, PW.13 obtained police custody from the Court and recovered Mangala Sutram from the

¶39

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶40

7

¶41

Well of the second scene of offence under mediators report. On 30.11.2002, PW.1 produced seven letters stating that they were written by the deceased and PW.13 sent the same to FSL, Hyderabad for comparing the handwriting of the deceased. The said letters were marked as Exs.P4, P5 and P14.

¶42

v) On 03.11.2002, as per the requisition of PW.10, PW.6 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Gudivada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 post-mortem certificate. According to PW.6, the deceased died due to asphyxia before she fell into the well.

¶43

vi) PW.13 took up further investigation and after obtaining all the relevant documents, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A6. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada took cognizance against the accused in PRC No.20 of 2003, for the offences under Sections 302, 304-B, 201 and 212 read with 34 IPC and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Krishna, Machilipatnam as the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, having assigned SC No.315 of 2003, made over the same to the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, for disposal.

¶44

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶45

8

¶46

On appearance of accused, charges for the offences-under Section 302 IPC against A1; under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A2 and A3; under Section 304-B IPC against A1 to A3, A5 and A6; under Section 201 IPC against A1, A4 and A6, and under Section 212 IPC against A2 to A6 were framed, contents of

¶47

the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶48

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P19 and exhibited MOs.1 to 8.

¶49

When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence, except marking Exs.D1 to D13.

¶50

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 27.11.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

¶51

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶52

9

¶53

As stated supra, d uring pendency of the present appeal, as appellant No.1/A1 died, the case against him was abated, vide orders of this Court dated 04.08.2023.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellants 2 and 3/A2 and A3 submitted that except making an omnibus accusation against A1 to A3 that they are alleged to have harassed the deceased for want of land and dowry amount, no specific act has been attributed against them, that too on which date, time and place they are alleged to have harassed the deceased. He further emphasised that though an omnibus accusation has been made that A1 to A3 are alleged to have harassed the deceased, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment. He submitted that in order to attract an offence under Section 304-B IPC, it is essential to prove that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before her death. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions reported in Bejjanki Kishan v. The State of AP¹ and Shindo @ Sawinder Kaur v. State of Punjab²

¶55

1 2005(2) ALD (Criminal) 185

¶56

2 2011(75) ACrC 537 : 2011 AIR (SCW) 6556

¶57

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶58

10

¶59

12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶60

submitted that according to the Doctor (PW.6), the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia and the deceased died even before the dead body fell in the well. He submitted that the accused harassed the deceased for want of land and dowry amount and the letters Exs.P3, P4 and P14 written by the deceased categorically go to show that she was subjected to harassment. He further submitted that Exs.P3, P4 and P14 letters were sent for analysis with the contemporaneous documents and the Scientific Officer, who was examined as PW.11, has categorically stated that the writings on Exs.P3, P4 and P14 letters and on the contemporaneous documents are one and the same, and by virtue of the same he submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused, which calls for no interference by this Court.

¶61

13. Heard. Perused the record.

¶62

PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. They

¶63

categorically stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment demanding land and dowry amount and A1 beat the deceased. On several occasions, the deceased came to the

¶64

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶65

11

¶66

house of PWs.1 and 2 and stayed for longer periods. The distance between the house of PWs.1 and 2 and the house of the accused is about 200 yards. At the time of marriage, PWs.1 and 2 agreed to give Ac.1.75 cents of land, cash of Rs.50,000/- and three (3) sovereigns of gold chain towards dowry, and the marriage between A1 and the deceased was performed on 07.05.1999. PWs.1 and 2 further agreed to give cash of Rs.15,000/- to A1‟s sister. It is alleged that at the instigation of A5 and A6, A1 to A3 used to harass the deceased demanding to register the land in their name and to pay additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-, and because of that the deceased used to go to the house of PWs.1 and 2 and stay there for longer periods. On one occasion, the deceased went to the house of PWs.1 and 2 and stayed for a period of one year. At that relevant point of time, it is stated that A1 got issued a legal notice asking the deceased to join the conjugal life with him. After receiving the said notice, a panchayat was held before the elders, wherein the elders suggested to PW.1 to register the land in favour of A1 and handover cash of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated by PW.1 that the said land was registered in the name of A1, though at a belated stage. In spite of registration of land, the accused are alleged to have

¶67

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶68

12

¶69

harassed the deceased by beating her demanding to bring the cash and gold chain. At that point of time, when PW.1 intended to bring the deceased to his house, A1 to A3 removed the gold Mangala Sutram along with Gold Nanu Tadu from the neck of the deceased and kept the same with them. It is alleged that the accused insisted the deceased to wear turmeric thread and go to the house of PWs.1 and 2. Four days prior to the death of the deceased, she came to the house of PWs.1 and 2 and told that A1 to A3 threatened to kill her with kerosene, if she does not comply with their demand. On 03.11.2002, at about 03.00 AM, A1 and others came to the house of PWs.1 and 2 and told that the deceased was not found in their house and asked PWs.1 and 2 whether the deceased came to their house. Later, PW.1 found the deceased in the well of A4. On the advice of elders, PW.1 lodged the report Ex.P1.

¶70

In the cross-examination, PW.1 categorically admitted to the extent that the daughter of A2 and A3 was in Karuna Hospital, Gudivada for delivery one week prior to the death of the deceased. At the same time, PW.1 expressed that he does not know whether the daughter of A2 and A3 was in the hospital on

¶71

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶72

13

¶73

the date of death of the deceased or not. It is needless to mention here that when the daughter of A2 and A3 was in the hospital for delivery, it is quite normal that the mother of the pregnant woman would be in the hospital. It is not borne out from the record as to whether A2 and A3 were present in their house on the date of death of the deceased or not. There is any amount of ambiguity with regard to presence of A2 and A3 in the house on the date of the incident. In order to point finger at A2 and A3, it is for the prosecution to prove implicitly that A2 and A3 were present in the house as on the relevant date of death of the deceased. In the absence of evidence with regard to the same from any of the prosecution witnesses, an element of doubt arises as to whether the appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3 were present in the house or not.

¶74

Apart from the same, a perusal of the report Ex.P1 goes to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment by A1 and the appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3. Except making an omnibus accusation to the said extent, there is no averment on record to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment by A2 and A3. It is relevant to mention

¶75

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶76

14

¶77

here that in column 15 of the inquest report Ex.P15, the mediators observed that harassment was meted out to the deceased by A1 to get the land registered in his name and for dowry amount. In connection with that, the deceased was harassed by A1 on one circumstance. All the mediators opined that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellants herein also. Except the said averment, there is no other material on record to show that the appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3 were involved in harassing the deceased, soon before her death.

¶78

Further, in the letters, said to have been written by the deceased and marked as Exs.P3, P4 and P14, no dates were mentioned as to when the alleged harassment was meted out to the deceased. The letter Ex.P3 was addressed to the SubInspector of Police alleging that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by A1 to A3. Though the letter Ex.P3 was addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, it is not known as to why the same was not converted into a complaint or for registration of FIR. All the letters Exs.P3, P4 and P14 are undated. Ex.P5 is the note book said to have been written by the deceased while she was studying 6^th Class. Taking that into

¶79

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶80

15

¶81

account, it can safely be inferred that the handwriting of the deceased at the time when she was studying 6^th Class would not amount to a contemporaneous document. Despite the said fact, those documents were sent to the FSL, Hyderabad for comparing the handwritings of the deceased. According to PW.11 - the Scientific Officer, APFSL, Hyderabad, the hand writings Exs.Q1 to Q3 in Exs.P3, P4 and P14 letters and standard handwritings of the deceased marked as S1 to S10 in the note book Ex.P5 are one and the same. It is pertinent to mention here that in Ex.P1 report given by PW.1, there is no reference with regard to the letters Exs.P3, P4 and P14 said to have been written by the deceased and the note book Ex.P5. Even PW.1 did not state either before the police or during the course of recording his statement by PW.10 - the Mandal Executive Magistrate, with regard to the said documents. At the same time, it is not the case of PWs.2 to 9 that they stated about the existence of Exs.P3, P4 and P14 letters said to have been written by the deceased. Though there is no reference about those letters in the FIR, the same were brought into existence at a belated stage i.e. after lapse of more than a month, and the same were handed over to the investigating agency for sending the same to the hand-writing

¶82

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶83

16

¶84

expert. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that much credence cannot be given to the letters Exs.P3, P4 and P14 for the reason that the said letters were not brought into existence immediately after the incident and the same were brought into existence at a belated stage. Apart from the same, the letters Exs.P3, P4 and P14 are undated.

¶85

PWs.3 and 4 have stated with regard to the mediation that took place in the presence of elders and the elders advising PW.1 to get the land registered in the name of A1. Their evidence has no relevance to the present facts and circumstances of the case. PW.7, who is the uncle of the deceased, speaks with regard to demand of dowry by A1 and quarrel that ensued between the accused and the deceased. He states that he received a call that the deceased died on 03.11.2002. PW.8, who is also a distant relative of the deceased, speaks on the same lines as that of PW.7.

¶86

In Bejjanki Kishan’s case (supra), the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, observed as follows.

¶87

“5. There are two sets of main witnesses in this case. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are close relations of the deceased and

¶88

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶89

17

¶90

prosecution has tried to establish through their testimony that there had been harassment on account of demand for dowry prior to the death of the deceased, by the accused. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are the witnesses, who have spoken about the occurrence. The learned senior counsel submits that there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, which would satisfy the requirement of Section 304-B of I.P.C. that there had been demand for dowry immediately before the death of the deceased, that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. And similarly, P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 have not spoken anything about the actual occurrence, and about the involvement of the accused in the offence. As a matter of fact, the testimony of these witnesses would show the conduct of the accused, who tried to save the deceased. Before coming to the evidence in detail, we are conscious that the ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C. are--

¶91

(1) the death should be unnatural.

¶92

(2) it should be within 7 years of the marriage, and (3) there should be harassment or cruelty by husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand of dowry.

¶93

If all these three ingredients are proved by the prosecution, then the onus would be on the accused to show that he was not guilty. But if any of the ingredients of Section 304-B, I.P.C. was not satisfied, then the conviction under Section 304-B, I.P.C. cannot be sustained. In the present case, there is no doubt that two ingredients are satisfied i.e. death of the deceased had occurred within 7 years of the marriage and that the death was unnatural. The controversy is with

¶94

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶95

18

¶96

regard to the third ingredient. In view of this discussion we analyze the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3.

¶97

...............Therefore, we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record to show that there was harassment on account of demand of dowry immediately prior to the death. Therefore, the important ingredient of Section 304-B, I.P.C. was not satisfied. Therefore, in our view, the appellant could have not been convicted under Section 304-B, I.P.C.”

¶98

20. In Shindo @ Sawinder Kaur’s case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows.

¶99

“An appeal was thereafter taken by the State to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court has endorsed the opinion of the Trial Court that both the dying declarations deserved to be rejected. However, the High Court relying on the evidence of PW.2, held that demands for dowry soon before the death had indeed been made and that some parts of two dying declarations supported the allegations of such demands and as the death was undoubtedly unnatural the ingredients of Section 304-B were spelt out against the accused. The judgment of the Trial Court was accordingly reversed and the accused were convicted under Section 304-B of the IPC and 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and under 498-A to two years with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, both the

¶100

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶101

19

¶102

sentences to run concurrently. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the High Court.

¶103

We also notice that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. Undoubtedly in a case of a dowry death under Section 304-B, a presumption of Sec.113-B does arise against the accused. However, the presumption is relateable to the fact that the prosecution must first spell out the ingredients of the offence and then only can a presumption arise. In the present case we find that the death was an unnatural one and had taken place within seven years of the marriage but the third ingredient that any demand for dowry had been made soon before the death has not been proved. In this view of the matter the presumption under Section. 113-B of the evidence cannot be raised. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the judgment/order of the High Court.”

¶104

Coming to the case on hand, the case of the prosecution is that A1 is alleged to have beat the deceased and thereafter the body of the deceased was recovered from the well of A4. According to PW.13, A1 is alleged to have made a confessional statement stating that the gold chain of the deceased was thrown in the well and took the mediators and police to the Well and brought MO.1 from the well basing on the confession of A1. The confession made before the police officer is not admissible in evidence. In the case on hand, marriage of the deceased was

¶105

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶106

20

¶107

performed with A1 on 07.05.1999 and death of the deceased took place on 02.11.2002 i.e. within the period of three and half years of her marriage i.e. the death of the deceased is within seven years of marriage. Apart from the same, going by the evidence of Doctor (PW.6), he categorically stated that the death of the deceased was unnatural, since she died even before her falling into the well. It is not known as to who is responsible for the death of the deceased, except the accusation to the extent that some broken bangles were found in front of the house of A1, which reference has not been made in the FIR. The other ingredient which has to be satisfied in order to attract the offence under Section 304-B IPC is that the deceased should have been subjected to harassment soon before her death. Going by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it goes to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment, and because of the harassment meted out to her, she used to visit her parents‟ house and stay there for longer periods. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellants 2 and 3 / A.2 and A.3. In the absence of any such evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction recorded against

¶108

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶109

21

¶110

the appellants herein/A2 and A3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not sustainable. Though there is evidence against A1 that he beat the deceased, since he died during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal against A1 was abated.

¶111

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against them in the impugned judgment passed are liable to be set aside.

¶112

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, in the judgment in SC No.315 of 2003, dated 27.11.2006 are set aside. The appellants 2 and 3 herein/A2 and A3 are found not guilty of the charge under Section 304B IPC and they are acquitted of the same, and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 shall be refunded to them.

¶113

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1597 of 2006

¶114

22

¶115

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶116

pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶117

_______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶118

Date:12.03.2025 Nsr