Partly allowed

Tatiparthi Sri Rama Srinivas Prasad and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRLA/1372/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside Section 304-B conviction for lack of proof regarding harassment soon before death in domestic violence case. Upheld Section 498-A conviction for husband and father-in-law based on dowry harassment allegations.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside but conviction under Section 498-A IPC maintained; bail granted.

Tatiparthi Sri Rama Srinivas Prasad and 2 Others, Vs the… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Note: The Accused/appellant was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 1 5 1 1 2008 in Crl.M.P.No.21 1B of 2008 in Crl.A.No.1371 of 2008.

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1371 AND 1372 OF 2008

¶7

CRL.A.No.1371 of 2008:

¶8

Criminal Appeal filed Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No.3'15 of 2006 dated 14.11.2008 on the file of lV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Tachadishetty Vijayalaxmi W/o. Kondala Rao, House Wife, Rl/o. Guntur

¶11

...APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Note: The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 15.11.2008 in Crl.lr/.P.No.2120of 2008 in Crl.A.No.1372ol 2008-

¶16

CRL.A.No.1372 of 2008 :

¶17

Criminal Appeal filed Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No.315 of 2006 dated 14.11.2008 on the file of lV Additional Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District (Fast Track Court).

¶18

Between:

¶19

Tatiparthi Sri Rama Srinivas Prasad, S/o. Venkata Das, Business, Fl/o. Pragathinagar, Neredmet.

¶20

Smt. Tatiparthi Nageswaramma, W/o. Venkat Dass, Housewife, R/o. Satyanarayanapyuram, Gudiwada, Krishna District.

¶21

Tatiparthi Ver,katadas, S/o- Ramaswamy, Private Teacher, Fl/o. Satyanarayanap /uram, Grrdiwada, Krishna District. ...APPELLANTS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3

¶22

AND

¶23

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

¶24

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶25

Counsel for the Appef lants (in both) : SRl. K.V.SUBBA REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Resp,rndent (irr both) : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the fi:rllowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1371 & Lg72 OF 2OOB

¶30

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶31

Criminal Appeal No. 1371 of 2OOB is preferred by the appellant/A4 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment lor a period of one month and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶32

Criminal Appeal Nos.1372 of 2008 is preferred by the appellants/Al to A,3, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-8 of IPC.

¶33

Since both the Criminal Appeals are by accused in S.C.No.315 of 2006 questioning Judgement dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge), they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

¶34

¶35

The appellants 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.1372 of 2008 expired and th: death certihcates are hled. Accordingly, the appeai at,ates as against the appellants 2 and 3.

¶36

The cas,: of the^prosecution is that t-he daughter of P.W. 1, the deceased, who wrrs married to the 1", appellant in the year 1999. The m.i-rriage riras performed by giving dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs and 20 tulas ol gold and other house hold articles worth Rs.l.0O la-kh. The drceased and Al lived together and there was no comirlaint lbr about sk mor:ths. However, the deceased rerqr ested I).W. 1 to give Rs.50,000/- to enable l"t appellant tc, co busiress in computers. As P.W. 1 expressed his inability to proride the said amount, his deceased daughter cried and iniormed that her husband and in-laws are harassing her. Thereafter, the deceased rnent to P.W. 1's house and requestr:d to regis.er 50 sq.yds of site in her favour, tailing which, A1 refused to ii'ze with her.

¶37

It is furtf,er a11e5ed that the appellants were harassing the deceasecl srtating^'.hat she was unabie to conceive. She ca-lled before \ inayakrtchavithy festival and informed P.W. 1

¶38

¶39

that the accused were beating her and requested to take her home. In the meanwhile, P.W. 1 received phone call stating that the deceased was acting in a weird manner and expressed doubt that she may harm herself. P.Ws.l,2 and 3 then went to see the deceased, by which time, she died by consuming porson.

¶40

The prosecution, to substantiate the a,llegations against the appellants examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who are sisters of the deceased and P.W.4, grand son of P.W. 1.

¶41

B. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the accused 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC and A-4 under Section 498-A IPC when omnibus allegations were made. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to any kind of harassment to attract the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC. For the said reason, the finding of guilt against the appellants, have to be revcrsed and acquitted.

¶42

¶43

On the other himd, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submir that there was continuous harassment even according to the plcsecution witnesses. They stated that dowry was given rt the time of marriage and also subsequently, the d:mand for registration of plot led to constant hara:sment by the appellants emd finally leading to the decease:d commi ting suicide, unable to bear the said harassment. In the said circumstances, the well reasoned judgment o1' tlre learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.

¶44

The Honlrle Supleme Court in the ctrse of Girish Singh v. State of Uttaral<handr, held as follows:

¶45

"33. Thus, it :an be seen that the offence created by Section 3O4-B requires the ollowing :lements to be present rn order that it may apply:

¶46

(t) Within 7 y ars of tht marriage, there must happen the death of a woman (the w;fe).

¶47

(ll) The death 'nust be c rused by any burns or bodill. injury. OR

¶48

The death rnu ;t occur o herwise than under norma-l circumstances. (lll) It must >e established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cr uelty or harassment.

¶49

(l{ The cruelt'z or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husbanr [.

¶50

'AIR^{2019Supreme Court 4529}

¶51

¶52

(V) The cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 34. Section 304-E} treats this as a dowry death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it further provides that husband or reladve shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely, the death contemplated under Section 304-8 IPC, has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death, the woman was subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption alld it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of SecLion 304-8."

¶53

P.Ws.l to 4, however, stated that the allegations which they have stated regarding demand for additional dowr5r was known to them only through the deceased and was never asked by the appellants herein directly.

¶54

The allegation of demand for Rs.50,000/- was not made directly by the appellants even according to P.W. 1 and the said amount was not given. The allegation regarding the demand of plot was, according to P.W. 1 to be registered in the name of the deceased. The deceased had asked her father to register the plot in her favour, which was at the instance of the appellants herein. However, there is no direct demand by the appellants herein that was made to P.W. 1 for registration ol plot in the name of the deceased. The appellants were a-lso

¶55

¶56

harassing the deceased for not bearing the children. Both the allegations ar: omnil ,ns in nature without giving any specific details. Furtlrer the witnesses have spoken that it was the deceased who had infcrmed about such harassment.

¶57

The prosecution has failed to proximately connect any kind of demr,nd that resulted in the deceased committing suicide. To cr,nvict an accused under Section 304-8 of IPC, it is essential lcr the prosecution to prove that there was harassment s< on before her death. Though, no specific period or length of ti me coutd be determined to say what would be 'soon before t're death'. However, the factor of harassment soon before d,:ath would depend upon the circumstances of each case anr t have to be determined ,rn the basis of the allegations in t re individual case.

¶58

In the present case, the witnesses have not stated anlthing, exc( pt star.ing that there was harassment lor registration of plot ani that she was unable to conceive, as such, it cannot be said that there was any kind of harassment soon before th': deceased committing suicide. For the said

/\4

t i

reasons, the^prosecution has failed to^prove an offence under Section 304-8 of IPC against the l"t appellant, however liable under section 4984. of IPC.

¶64

¶65

The allegation regarding the demand for additional dowry for Rs.SO,OOO/- and also asking for registration of plot in the name of the deceased would amount to crueltSr, for which reason, the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC is maintained against A- 1 and A4

¶66

In the result, the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.315 of 2O06 vide judgment dated L4.LL.2OO8, against the appellant-Al for the offence under Section 3O4-B ofIPC is set aside and the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC against A4 is maintained. A-1 is found guilty for the offence under section 498,{ IPC. Since the offence had taken place in the year 2005, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-4' of IPC against ,A.4 is modifred to that of the period which the A4 has already undergone. A-1 is also sentenced to the period already undergone.. However,

¶67

¶68

¶69

maintaining the ser:tence of fine and the default conditions stipulated th,:re und :r.

¶70