Dismissed

The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, v. Rangu Sathyanarayana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2021CRLA/425/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court examined whether the trial court rightly discharged the accused of dowry death and cruelty charges. The court held there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment immediately before the deceased's death. Upholding the trial court's view, the appeal was dismissed confirming the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed.

The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Rangu… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 425 0F 2010

¶7

Criminal Appeal Under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 13-02-2009 in SC.No. 49212007 on the fite of the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimangar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of A.P.,iep.by its Public Prosecutor,, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶10

...APELLANT/PETITION E R

¶11

AND

¶12

Rangu Sathyanarayana, S/o. Shankaraiah, R/o. Gopalraopet, Karimangar District.

¶13

Rangu Rajawa @ Rajamma, W/o. Shankaraiah, R/o. Gopalraopet, Karimangar District.

¶14

...RESPODENTS/ACCUSED

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 425 of 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This Criminat Appeat is fited under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr.P.C" by the State, chattenging the judgment, dated 13.02.?OO9 passed in S.C.No.492 of 7007 on the fite of the V Additional. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the accused were acquitted for the offences punishabte under Section 304-8 of l.p.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,^'1961 .

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties wilt hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in 5.C.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Rangu Latha @ Shaitaja (here'inafter referred to as^,,the deceased,,), who is the daughter of P.W.1, was performed with A-1 in the month of March, 2000. At the time of marriage, p.W.1 presented dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, 4 Tz tolas of gotd, '14 toLas of sitver and other househotd conventionat artictes. The deceased joined A-l and they tived happity for about three months and thereafter, A-1 on the instigation of A-2, who is the mother of A-1, started harassing the deceased to bring additionat dowry of Rs"g0,000/- during her first pregnancy and unabte to bear the harassment of both the accused, she consumed poison to commit suicide, but fortunatety she had survived. ln this regard, a panchayat was conducted by P.Ws.9 and 10 and they advised both the parties to have peacefut tiving but the accused did Dtultchange their attitude and continued

¶24

¶25

to harass the deceased^{mentatty and physicattyjust one week prior} to her death.^{On such harassment, the deceasedbrought} Rs.10,000/' from^{her parents and simitarty now and then P'W'1} paid a totat sum of^{Rs.60,000/' in differentinstalments to the} accusedasadditionatdowry.Notbeingsatisfiedwiththesame' the accused were^{harassingthe deceasedand subjectedher to} cruetty both^{mentattyand physical'ty. On 29'12'2006,both the} accused harassed^{the deceasedfor dowry and the harassment was} so severe, she^{was unabteto bear with it and uttimatety' the} deceased^{jumpedinto an agricutturat wett betonging to P'W'12 and} died. Basing^{on these attegations a charge sheet cameto be fited} before the^{Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Peddapatty,who} inturncommittedthecasetotheSessionsDivisionunderSection 209 of Cr.P.C.,^{whereinit cameto be numberedas S'C'No'492 of} 2007.

¶26

On appearance^{of the accused, the materiatwas perusedand} on being^{satisfied,chargesunder Section304-B of l'P'C' and} Section 4 of the^{Dowry Prohibition Act, t961 were framed'read} over and exptained^{to the accused in telugu, to which theypteaded} not^guitty and^{ctainled to be tried.}

¶27

ln support of^{its case, the prosecution examined P'Ws'1 to 15} and^got marked^{Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os"t to 3' After ctosure of the} prosecution evidence,^{the accused were examinedU/s'313 Cr'P'C'} exptaining the^{incriminating materiat avaitabteon record' but the} samewasdeniedbytheaccused'Ne'itheroratnordocumentary evidence^{was produced on behatfof the accused'}

¶28

¶29

After anatyzing the evidence avaitable on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Chattenging the same the present appeaL is fited by the State.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶31

Learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the appettant-State contended that the judgment of the trial Court is against [aw, weight of evidence and probabitities of the case and that the triat Judge faited to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

¶32

Learned CounseI appearing for the respondents/accused woutd submit that the Prosecution miserabty faited to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruetty on the crucial day or at any time immediately before the occurrence and there is absotutety no acceptabte evidence to show that any of the accused herein made a demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased and as such the prosecution faited to estabtish the guitt of the accused beyond reasonabte doubt, therefore the accused were rightty acquitted by the trial Court.

¶33

The point that arises for consideration in this appeat is whether the judgment of acquittal recorded by the triat Court is sustainable in taw?

¶34

ln case of appeal against acquittal the scope of appeal is circumscribed by limitation. Unless the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is_ vitiated by manifest ittegatity or

¶35

¶36

conctusion arrived at by the^{tower Court is peryerse, no} interference with the order^{of acquittal is permissibte.}

¶37

P.W.'t is the father and^{PW.2is the brotherof the deceased'} P.W.3 is the Medicat Officer,^{who conducted the postmortem} examination. P.Ws.4 to 8^{are the circumstantia[ witnesses, PWs.9} and'10 are the elders,^{whoconducted panchayat,P.W"l 'l is the} panch witnesses for conducting witnesses,^{P.W.12is the person,in} whose we[[ the deceased^{fett and died, P'W.13is the Mandal} Revenue Officer,^{who conductedinquest overthe dead body of the} deceased and P.Ws.14 and^{15 are the lnvestigatingOfficers'}

¶38

P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed^{in their evidencethat the deceased} and A-1 tived^{happity for three months and thereafter both the} accused harassed^{her demandingadditionat dowry of Rs'30,000/-'} PWs.4 to 8, who^{are the neighboursof the accused, did not support} the case of the^{prosecutionand they were treated as hostite'} P.W.12, who is the owner^{of the wett 'in which the dead body of} the deceased was found,^{statedthat he does not knowthe reason} why the deceased committed^{suicide.There remainsthe evidence} of P.Ws.1, 2, 9 and^{10 for considerationas to whetherthe accused} demanded dowry^{and harassedthe deceasedfor extracting it'}

¶39

With regard to the^{demand of dowry just prior to the death} of the deceased,^{P.Ws.1and 2 have stated in their evidence that} three months after the^{marriage,there were quarrets between} P.W.1 and the accused^{on accountof the accused harassing the} deceased for dowry,^{but PWs.9and 10, who conductedpanchayqt}

¶40

¶41

on the comptaint made by P,W.'l , deposed that the atteged harassment was made five years prior to the death of the deceased. That apart, the oral statements made to p.Ws.1, 2, 9 and 10 not onty gave two confticting versions, but also in consistent with each other.

¶42

The ingredients necessary for the apptication of Section 304B IPC are :

¶43

that the death of a woman has been caused by burns or bodity injury or occurs otherwise than under normat circumstances,

¶44

that such death has been caused or has occurred within seven years of her marriage and,

¶45

that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruetty or harassment by her husband or any retative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry.

¶46

ln Biswajit Holder olias Babu Halder and others Vs. State of WBl the Apex Court hetd that the deficiency in evidence regarding any cruetty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry woutd prove fatat for the case of the prosecution and that apart, mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in apptication of Section 304-8 of lpC and in addition, it has to be shown that such cruelty or harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry.

¶47

'lzoosy^{r scc} 1crt.;^rzz

¶48

¶49

ln Kamesh Panjiyar^{Vs. Stot.e of Bihor2the Apex Courthetd} that "determinat'ion^{of the period which can come within the term} 'soon before' is teft to be determined by^{the Courts, depending} upon facts and^{circumstances of each case' But, however,the} Honourab[e Supreme^{Courtindicated in the decision statedsupra} that.soonbefore,wou[dnormaltyimptythattheintervalshouldnot be much between^{the concernedcruetty or harassmentand the} death in^{question."The Apex Court furtherhetd as under:-}

¶50

"15. A conjoint reading of Section 1 13'B of the Evidence^Act and Section 304'8^{of IPCshowsthat there must be material} to show that^{soon beforeher death, the victim was} subjected to^{cruettyor harassment. Prosecutionhas to rute} out the^{possibitity of a naturalor accidentaldeath so as to} bring it within the^{purview of the 'deathoccurring} otherwise than in^{normalcircumstances"The expression} 'soon before' 1s very relevant where^{Section 113-8 of the} Evidence Act^{and Section 304'B IPC are pressed into} service. Prosecution^{is obtiged to show that soon before the} occurrence there^{was cruelty or harassment and onty in} that case^{presumptionoperates.Evidence in that regard} has to be ted by^{Prosecution.'Soon before'isa retative term} and it woutd depend^{upon circumstancesof each case and} no strait^{jacketformuta can be taid down as to what would} constitute a^{period of soon before the occurrence'lt woutd} be hazardous to^{indicate any fixed period, and that brings} in the importance^{of a proximity test bothfor the proofof} an offence of dowry death as^{we[[ as for} raising a presumption under Section^{113-B of Evidence} Act. The expression^{'soon before her death'usedin the substantive} Section 304-8^{IPC and Section113-B of the Evidence Actis} present with the idea of^{proximity test' No definiteperiod} has been indicated^{and the expression 'soon before' is not}

¶51

'(2oos)^{12 scc 72}

¶52

¶53

defined. A reference to expression^,soon before, used in Section 114. l[[ustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief has received the goods knowing them to be stoten, untess he can account for his possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term'soon before, is left to be determined by the Courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however to indicate that the expression 'soon before, woutd normalty impLy that the intervat shoutd not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live tink between the effects of cruetty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If atteged incident of cruetty is remote in time and has become state enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it woutd be of no consequence.

¶54

Consequences of cruelty which are tikety to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to [ife, limb or heatth, whether mental or physicat of the woman is required to be estabtished in order to bring home the apptication of Section 49g-A lpC. Cruetty has been defined in the Expl.anation for the purpose of Section 49g_A. Substantive Section 498-4 lpC and presumptive Section 113_ A of the Evidence Act have been inserted in the respective statutes by Criminat Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. lt is to be noted that Sections i04-B and 498-4 lpc cannot be hetd to be mutuatty inclusive. These provisions deat with two distinct offences. lt is true that cruetty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Exptanation to Section 498-4 gives the meaning of 'cruetty'. ln Section 304-B'there is no such exptanation about the meaning of 'cruetty,., But having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of 'cruetty, or^,harassment, .is the same as prescribed in the Exptanation to Section 49g_A under which

¶55

¶56

'cruetty' by itsetf amounts to an offence'^{Under Section304'} B it is^{'dowry death' that is punishabteand such death} shoutd have^{occurredwithin sevenyears of marriage'No} such^{periodis mentioned in Section 498-A' lf the case is} estab[ished^{there can be a conviction under both the} sections.^{(See Akuta Ravinderand othersVs' The State of} Andhra Pradesh [AlR-1991-SC-'l^{'142]' Period of operationof} Section^{113'B of the Evidence Act is sevenyears'} presumption arises^{whena woman committedsuicide within} a period of^{seven years fromthe dateof marriage"'}

¶57

Therefore,^{in view of the above said settted principteof I'aw} taid down^{by the Apex Court in respect of the case under Section} 304-8 of lPC,^{the prosecutionis bound to provethe existence of a} proximate and^{tive-tinkbetweenthe effects of cruetty basedon} dowry demand^{and the concerneddeath' On a ctosescrutiny of the} testimony of^P.Ws.'l ,^{2, 9 and 10, it does not spett out any} circumstances^{to showthat there was any cruetty or harassment'in} connection^{with the demandof dowrysoon before the deathof the} deceased.^{Therefore, it is crystat ctearthat there is absotutelyno} material avail,abte^{on record to the effect that soon beforeher} heath, the^{deceased was subjectedto cruel treatment' which} drove her^{to take the extreme step of puttingan end to her [ife'}

¶58

ln view of^{the Judgmentsreferredto aboveand having} regard to the^{factsand circumstances of the case' I am of the view} that there^{is no ittegaLityor perversityin the findings of the triat} Court and that^{there is nothing to interfere and the sameis liabte} to be dismissed.

¶59

¶60

Accordingty, the^{appeat is dismissedconfirming the judgment} dated'l3.02.2009passedinS.C.No.492of2007onthefiteoftheV

¶61

Additionat^{Sess'ionsJudge,Karimnagar.}

¶62

As a sequel thereto,^{MiscettaneousPetitions,if any, pending}

¶63

shall stand ctosed.

¶64

¶65

,TRUE COPY//