Allowed

Kota Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Sub-Divisional Police

Telangana HC14 Nov 2012CRLA/1352/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove harassment immediately preceding the deceased's suicide, as the evidence lacked specifics on ill-treatment between the alleged incident and the suicide.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC are set aside; the appellant is acquitted.

Kota Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1352 OF 2005

¶2

DATED 14^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

Kota Srinivasulu

¶5

.. Petitioner-A.1

and

State of A.P.

..Respondent

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1352 OF 2005

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

Appellant-A.1 preferred the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 31.08.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No.63 of 2001 wherein the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nellore while acquitting A.2 and A.3 for an offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) convicted the appellant herein under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

¶12

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased Sujatha was performed with A.1 on 17.04.1998, at that time Rs.2,15,000/- cash was given as Stridhana apart from 5 sovereigns of gold and other domestic articles. Since three months thereafter, accused started harassing her demanding amount on the occasions of festivals. A.1 also used to insist the parents of the deceased to get insurance policies. Further, when PWs 1 and 2 requested the accused

¶13

to send the deceased along with them, accused demanded Rs.1,60,000/-. Having vexed with the attitude of the accused, on 31.05.2000 at 7.00 a.m. deceased committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the case.

¶14

After investigating into the complaint lodged by the complainant, police registered a case and after due investigation they filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code and after taking cognizance of the same, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, in P.R.C.No.62 of 2000 committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the same was made over to the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore, for disposal in accordance with law.

¶15

Charge under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against A.1 to A.3 were framed wherein the accused denied the offence. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked. After appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge by impugned judgment while acquitting A.2 and A.3, convicted the appellant-A.1 as stated above. Aggrieved over the same, present appeal has been filed.

¶16

The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are related to the deceased herein. The main allegations against the accused, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, are that when the appellant demanded Rs.2 lakhs for his business purpose only Rs.40,000/- was paid to him and the remaining amount was not paid. Hence, the deceased was subjected to harassment. On 25.05.2000 PWs 1 and 2 visited the house of the appellant to attend the obsequies of the father of the appellant, accused did not respond properly with them. It is their further case that on that day when they asked the accused to send the deceased along with them, accused demanded them for balance amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and in that connection the deceased was subjected to cruelty.

¶17

This Court perused the record and also heard the arguments.

¶18

PWs 1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, have stated before the Court and also in Ex.P.1 that the appellant herein demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for investing in share market for which P.W.1 has given Rs.40,000/- only. Nowhere it is stated either in complaint, statement or in the evidence that the said amount is demanded as dowry from P.W.1. Even assuming for a moment that the said amount is demanded as dowry, mere demand of dowry does not attract the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act or ingredients of offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. Further, when the said demand is for the purpose of some business, it cannot be termed as a demand for dowry. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly indicates that even though they have stated that the deceased was harassed, nowhere it is stated as to the type of ill-treatment or harassment by the accused which necessitated the deceased to commit suicide in the house of the appellant herein. Even though it is stated in the evidence that she was not provided food and not allowed to talk with her parents, the same is nullified by Exs.D.1 to D.7.

¶19

Further, it is also to be noted that the word ‘harassment’ and the way in which the deceased was not allowed to take food in the house of the appellant is not specified either in complaint, statements or in evidence. The witnesses improved the said version before the Court. In view of catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, even though there is a presumption clause it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to harassment just prior to committing suicide. Further, it is also not the case of the prosecution that on 25.05.2000 when PWs 1 and 2 visited the house of the appellant herein the deceased informed them that she was subjected to harassment. Further she committed suicide on 31.05.2000 and there is absolutely no evidence to show that in between 25.05.2000 and 31.05.2000 there was some harassment or quarrel or any other incident, which necessitated the deceased to commit suicide. To

¶20

attract an offence under Section 304B IPC, there should be an incident just prior to committing suicide, which necessitated the deceased to commit suicide.

¶21

Taking into consideration, the entire evidence as a whole, the allegations stated by the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the witnesses to some extent, this Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict a person basing on the available evidence that too for an offence under Section 304B IPC. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide judgment dated 31.08.2005 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences levelled against him.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date : 14.11.2012 sur

Kota Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Sub-Divisional Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Sub-Divisional Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pallaparthi Eswara Rao Vs State of Ap.

Aithe Shivakumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Banoth Eeriya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alapati Bhaskara Rao, Vs Smt. Alapati Adiseshamma

Chinnapaka Usha Rani, Vs Chinnapaka Bixapathi , Rufas Kumar

Kotni Aswini, Vs Kosuri Arun Kumar , Arun