Partly allowed

Malve Nagaraju, and Another, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC12 Jul 2022CRLA/1069/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held Section 306 IPC abetment charged not made out due to lack of evidence proving instigation of suicide, set aside that conviction. Confirmed conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC relating to dowry harassment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC confirmed with modification of imprisonment period to time already undergone.

Malve Nagaraju, and Another, Vs the State of Ap… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Bail Slip:- The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated O4/OS|20OB in Crl.A.M. P.No . 1562 oi 2OO8 in Crl.A.No.1069 of 2008

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1069 OF 2008

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed Under Section 374 (21 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No.51 of 2006 dated 18.8.2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-lll Additional District &

¶8

Sessions Judge^(FTC) at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Malve Nagaraju, S/o Ramesh, Cloth Business,

¶11

Smt. M.Yashoda, W/o Ramesh, Housewife,

¶12

Both are R/o H.No. 24-13511, West Anand Bagh, Nlalkajgiri,

¶13

...APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 &2

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of AP, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶16

...RES'.NDENT/..M'LA'NANT

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1069 of 2OO8

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The appellants were charged for the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC, however, found guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay hne of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer sirnple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment dated 18.08.2008 in S.C.No.S1 of 2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the learned Sessions JudgeJ. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

¶24

It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.l is the elder brother of the deceased, who filed complaint stating that his deceased sister was married to the lst appellant/Al on 17.O5.2OO2. At the time of mariage, Rs.65,0O0/- cash and Rs.10,000/- worth house hold articles were given. An amount

¶25

¶26

of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also spent on the marriage. Six months after the rnarriage, the appellants herein and father ol A1 started demanding additional dowry, for rvhich, P.W.3, father, gave an amount of Rs.4O,0C0/- to the appellants/Al and A2. In the year 2OO4, in the month of Decernber, the deceased gave birth to a male child and after five months of the birth of the child, the deceased lvent to the house ol the appellants on 10.04.2005. The tonsure ceremony was celebrated at Vemulawada temple. On 07.05.2005, P.W. 1's neighbor who was examined as P.W.6 called and informed that the deceased was harassed and asked to take her back. However, on the same day, phone call was again received from the appellant's house that the deceased committed suicide.

¶27

The parents of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 and two brothers who were exarnined as P.Ws.4 and 5 also narrated the sarne facts as P.W. 1.

¶28

P.W.6, a-n independent witness stated that she was neighbor of P.W.2 and also narrated about the dowry^given at the time of the marriage. On the day^of death,^she stated that

¶29

¶30

the deceased made phone ca.li to her house and P.W.2 talked to her and she was unaware of any conversation between the deceased and P.W.2. On the same day, P.W.6 received a phone call at 9.OO p.m informing that the deceased committed suicide and P.W.6, in turn informed P.W.2 and others.

¶31

P.W.6 was declared hostile to the prosecution case as she has not spoken to any harassment for additional dowry. She lurther stated during her cross-examination that there was no custom of giving dowry 1n Rangaraj caste except giving customaqr gifts.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the original. complaint, there is an insertion of word 'dowry' above the writing customary gifts. When the original complaint Ex.P1 is seen, in fact, there is an insertion of 'dowry' written in Teh-rgu language. He further submits that P.Ws.1 to 5 are a-11 interersted witnesses, who are parents and brothers of the deceased. The only independent witness is P.W.6, who turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not mention any kind of harassment to the deceased.

¶33

¶34

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits ti-rat in fact, presumption has to be drawn as the deceased died within seven years ol the marriage and in view of the statements of the witnesses about harassment meted out to the deceased by the appeilants. Further, it cannot be said that the witnesses are interested for the reason of stating about demalds or quarrel and the sarne would be known to the family members. For the said reason, the hnding of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellalts are guilty of the offence cannot be interfered with.

¶35

As seen from the complaint Ex.Pl, there is a mention that the deceased was harassed and it was the deceased who had informed P.Ws.2 ald 3 and her brothers regarding harassment and requested to take her home on 07.05.2009. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the appellants were harassing the deceased stating that she had come from a lower class and ultimately it was a mistake in marrying her.

¶36

Admittedly, the allegations made in the compiaint are omnibus in nature. There are no specific details given in the

¶37

¶38

complaint regarding any demand of Rs.45,000/-. In order to attract an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, there must have been acts by tl-re appellants, which resulted in harassing the deceased and consequent to which unbearable harassment, the deceased must have committed suicide.

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs Indrajit Kundu and others reported in 2O2O (11 ALD (Crl.l 185 (SC), held as follows:

¶40

"12. In the^judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh 2OOl (21 ALD (Crl.) 873 (SC)=(2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court has considered the scope of Section 306 and the ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word "instigation", it is held in paragraph 20 as under:

¶41

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequer-rces to actualiy follow cannot be sa.id to be in stigatior r."

¶42

¶43

The ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are lacking for the reason of all the witnesses not stating specihcally regalding any harassment that was meted out to the deceased resulting in her committing suicide. However, it was stated by all the witnesses that the deceased was subjected to harassment as seen from the complaint and also the evidence.

¶44

L2. In view of above facts a-nd circumstances, the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellants/accused is not made out. However, the appellants/accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶45

In the result, the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.S1 of 2006 vide^judgment dated 18.08.2008, against the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, is set aside. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 498-A of IPC is confirmed. Ti-re sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period which the appellants/A1 and A2 has already undergone, while

¶46

¶47

maintaining the sentence of fine and the default conditions stipulated there under.

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶49

¶50

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINr //rRUE COPY// mlsrRAR SECTIO]fOFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

1 The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (with Records) 2 The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri One CC to Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao,Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad (OUT) Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy Ks bs

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1^210712022

JUDGMENT

CRL.A.No.1069 of²⁰⁰⁸

.{\ S TA}6-
.<
n
zfi sEP zml
-n

¶58

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.A.