Allowed

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC8 Jul 2013CRLA/181/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Single Judge examined whether the appellant-accused harassed the deceased for dowry before her suicide. Finding the dying declarations inconsistent and witness evidence contradictory or exaggerated, the Court held the material insufficient for conviction under Section 304-B IPC and acquitted the appellants, setting aside the trial Court's order. Bail was restored and f

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; fines ordered refunded.

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.181 OF 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants-accused against the judgment dated 6.2.2006 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in S.C.No.42 of 2001.

¶5

2. The case of the prosecution reads as follows:

¶6

A3 and A4 are the daughter and son of A1 and A2 and they are residing in the house bearing Door No.20F-9-5 of Karrivari street, Kothapet, Eluru. A3 used to stay mostly in the house of A1 and A2 due to the dispute with her husband. One Sesetty Nirmala (for short, ‘the deceased’) is the wife of A4. The marriage of the deceased and A4 took place six years back to the incident and out of wedlock, she gave birth to two issues viz., son and daughter. It is alleged since the date of marriage of the deceased, A1 to A3 harassed her demanding more dowry amount for purchase of a house and to meet their domestic expenses. The deceased did not inform the same to her parents, but informed the same to her neighbouring friend Nalla Anu (P.W.3). In spite of repeated appeals of the deceased, A4 observed silence over the events being happened.. On the other hand, he advised the deceased to bear the problems silently by giving respect to A1 to A3. While so, on 30.11.1999, A1 to A3 constantly harassed the deceased for her failure to bring money from her maternal house. The deceased frustrated with their attitude, informed to A4, but he did not take it seriously. On 1.12.1999 around 6 a.m., the deceased poured kerosene on herself in the bathroom of her house and set fire. On hearing the cries of the deceased, A4 came there and rapped the deceased in a blanket. During the said attempt, A4 sustained injuries. The deceased was taken to a private hospital. On receiving

¶7

information, the father of the deceased came and admitted the deceased in Government Headquarters hospital, Eluru for treatment. A4 was also admitted as inpatient in District Headquarters Hospital, Eluru. On receiving hospital intimation on 1.12.1999, the police went there and recorded the statement of the deceased at 3 p.m., basing on which a case was registered and investigated into. On 6.12.1999 the deceased succumbed to burns.

¶8

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru. The learned Magistrate took the same on file and committed to the Court of Sessions, West Godavari Division, Eluru. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No.42 of 2001 and made over the same to the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after following due procedure, framed charges for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, against the accused, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶9

4. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants-accused guilty for the offence under Sections 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal.

¶10

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the dying declarations are very inconsistent and therefore, they cannot be relied

¶11

upon and there is no sufficient material on record to establish that the deceased was harassed for additional dowry soon before her death and the witnesses improved their version at every stage and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective.

¶12

6. It is an admitted fact that the deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home and died on 6.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that A4 who is the husband of the deceased sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, the deceased was harassed by the accused to bring additional dowry and therefore, she committed suicide whereas it is the defence of the appellants that they never harassed the deceased.

¶13

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry.

¶14

8. Even though some allegations are made against the accused In Exs.P.7 and P15-dying declarations, but none of them does not establish that the deceased was harassed in connection with demand of dowry. Ex.P.7-dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate goes to show that the marriage of the deceased took place in the year 1993 and since then, her in-laws and her husband harassed her to bring dowry for construction of own house and that her sister-in-law harassed her mentally by throwing the milk cup to drink which is hot and when again the deceased gave milk cup to drink, which is cold and insulted her. This clearly goes to show that the alleged treatment is only in connection with some domestic affairs. The alleged acts of the accused do not constitute the harassment or ill-treatment, which is of such nature to drive the woman to commit suicide.

¶15

9. In Ex.P.15-dying declaration recorded by the police, the

¶16

deceased stated as follows:

¶17

“On 30.11.99 about 8 a.m., her parents-in-law repeated their acute words intending me stating I would have felt happy in fulfilling my ambition if I married an employee.”

¶18

10. On reading of the contents in the dying declarations, this Court is of the view that there is no proximity between her death and the allegations made in her statement. Further, it appears to be far from truth.

¶19

11. P.W.1, who is neighbour to the accused, deposed that the deceased used to visit his house to talk with the womenfolk of his house and that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel among themselves frequently. He deposed that he does know for what purpose they are quarrelling and whether he does not know as to what the deceased used to talk during her visits to his house to talk with the womenfolk of his house.

¶20

12. P.W.2, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that all the accused used to harass the deceased for bringing money from him for the purpose of purchase of new house and also for family expenses. He further deposed that one day, A3-sister-in-law of the deceased had quarreled with the deceased and tied telephone wire around the neck of the deceased and attempted to commit murder and on coming to know about the same, he brought the deceased to his house and subsequently, the matter was settled. The evidence of P.W.4 is also on the same lines. But the deceased did not state any such instances in her statements. Further, P.Ws.2 and 4 at one stage stated that they came to know about the harassment through the deceased on 1.12.1999. The version of P.Ws.2 and 4 is very exaggerative. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on their evidence.

¶21

13. P.W.3-Neighbour of the accused turned hostile. P.W.5 is the

¶22

photographer, who took photos at the scene of offence. P.W.6Magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased viz., Ex.P.7. P.W.7 is the Village Secretary, who acted as mediator to the scene of observation report. P.W.8- is the police constable who took the dead body of the deceased to the Post mortem examination. P.W.9-Civil Surgeon conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10-Doctor gave treatment to accused No.4 for the injuries sustained by him in the incident in question. P.W.11-Medical Officer who gave treatment to the deceased. P.W.12-M.R.O conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

¶23

14. P.W.13 is the then Head Constable who recorded the statement of the deceased in the hospital. He recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that P.W.2 did not state before him that the deceased used to inform him about the harassment meted out by her in the hands of her in laws and P.W.2 did not state before him that the deceased informed him about tying of telephone wire around her neck and that P.W.2 did not state that the accused were harassing the deceased since 1997.

¶24

15. P.W.14-Investigating Officer deposed that he recorded the statements of witnesses and took up investigation. P.W.15 is the Doctor who endorsed on the dying declarations recorded by the Magistrate and the Head Constable about the consciousness of the deceased.

¶25

16. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel for domestic affairs. In the circumstances and in the absence of sufficient material establishing the demand and harassment alleged to have been made by the accused soon before the death of the deceased, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to convict the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and hence, the conviction and sentence

¶26

imposed by the trial Court against the appellants-accused are liable to be set aside.

¶27

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants in S.C.No.42 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Consequently, they are acquitted for the said charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them after expiry of the statutory period.

¶28

The miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

¶29

___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date: 8.7.2013

¶30

Nn.

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶32

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.181 OF 2006

¶33

08.07.2013

¶34

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sesetti Ramachandra Rao (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

Koppaka Sanjeevarao (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

K.Sampathkumar, Vs The State ,through S.H.O P.S., Ramadugum

Gurram Koti Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Station House Officer

Chamala Gowri Sankara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Venkatasudharshan Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Nagavasa Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.