Partly allowed

Patnam Kistaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLA/1156/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed part of criminal appeal. Conviction under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act set aside due to lack of proof regarding dowry demand and material improvements in evidence. Appellant convicted for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act set aside. Appellant convicted for Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to period already undergone.

Patnam Kistaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3251 ]

¶2

Note : The AppellanU Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated: 0411012010 in CdA.A/P.No.1829 of 2010 in Crl.A No.'1 156 of 2010.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1156 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated: 30-09-20'10 in S.C.No.503 of 2008 on the fite of the Court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at IVlahabubnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Patnam Kistaiah, S/o Chinna Ashanna, Age 26 years, Agriculture, R/o Kotakonda Village, Narayanapet Mandal-

¶11

...AppellanUAccused-l

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶14

..RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. D.SANGEETHA REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

I I

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURI'NDER

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1156 OF 2O1O

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The Appellant was convicted for tl-re offenr:e undt-'r Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code^(for short^'lpC') and scntenced to undergo Rigorous [mprisonment for a^period of seven years and he was also convicted for^{tl-rc offence} under Section 4 of the Doqrry Prohibition Act, 1!t6 I^(for short 'the Act, 196 1') and sentenced to undergo^Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to^pav fine ol Rs.I ,OO0/ in default to suffer Simple lmprisonnrcn t for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the convit:tic,n, the appellant preferred this Criminal Appeal.

¶23

In brief, the case of the^{prosecutionis thatPWI} is the father of the deceased.^{The deceasedu'as marlieclto} the appellant 19 months^{prior to Ex.Plcomplaint,} 'vhich was lodged on 12.10.2OO7 .^{In the said complaintantl also} in the evidence of PW I , it^{is stated that 50 tulas ol si l"'er,2} tulas of gold chain, '/, tula^{of gotd ear rings, t/t Lula ol- gold} ring, 1O tulas of silver^{leg chains were givenas drrwn''}

¶24

They lived happily for a^{period of six mot-rths.However,the} appellant/ accused and his famil-r'^{tnembets (who r'vere} acquitted) harassed the deceased suspccting^{her character} and demanded an amount oi Rs.50,000/^.

¶25

PWl and PW2 further stated that the^deceased came to their house. Tu,o or thrcc days^{thereafter,the} appellant went to PW1's house and beat^{the deceased.For} the said reason, a panchayat^r'r,'as also held ilt the^presence of PW3. The appellant and others^{were tt'arned in the} panchayat for harassing the cleccascc.l. Thc deceased^went to the house of the appellant alter^{pancl-rayat.The} appellant forcibly snatched away the^gold chain^{of the} deceased. Even then, the deceased^cor-rtinued to^lead marital life. When the deceased and appellant^{went to} fields for agricultural work, the deceased^consumed pesticide in their agricultural field. Deceased was taken to the hospital. She was declarecl as 'brought^dead' by^the Doctors.

¶26

Aggrieved by the said suicide on account of was harassment by appellant and others, complaint

¶27

¶28

lodgecl. The Police filed chargesheet for^{the oflerrcc undt'r} Section 304-8 and 1O9 ol IPC and Sections 3 ancl^{4 of the} Act, 196 I . Learned Sessions Judge deemecl it^approprirLtc to frame cl-rarges under Section^{4 of} the^{Act, 196 I} .^Sections 498-A read with Section 34, 306,302^{read rvith St'ction 3:l} and alternatively Section 304-8^{read withSet:tic n 34 ol'} IPC.

¶29

On the basis of the^{evidenceof PW Io PW3.} learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused^{Nr.rs.12 1o 4} Hou,ever, the appellant was convicted for^{thc oflenccs} under Scction 304-B of IPC^{and Section 4 of the Act. 1961}

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would^submit that learned Sessions Judge erred in recording^tonviction when none of the ingredients of^{the offence underllectiorl} 304-8 of IPC vvere not^{made out.Even according to the} evidence of PW 1 and^{PW2 a bald allegationu'as made} against the appellant^{that he demanded Rs 50,')OO/} Hoq,ever, the said^{allegation is anomission irlthe} complaint that^{u'as lodgedat the earliestpoint of time'} Further, learnecl^counsel for^{the appellant argued thitt anv}

¶31

¶32

¶33

amount of improvcment \4/as made duriltg thc trral bv pW1 and PW2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the altpcllant relied on the decision rendered b-v the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Raman Kumar u. State of punjabt wl_rercin it was held that:

¶35

"In order to attract application of SecLior.t 304-Il lpe lhe essential ingredients are as Jbllotus: (i) The death of a utoman should be causecl br1 buns or bodily injury or othenuise than urrcler a ttorntal clrcumstance

¶36

(ii) Such a death should. haue occurred u.titltin seuett years of her marriage (iii) She must haue bee harassment as n , nu"b';n:::::: :i"r::".'; :: husband.

¶37

(iu) Such cnteltg or harassnent should be for. or in connection tuith demand of d_outry. (u) Such cnteltg or harassment is shou,n to haue been meted out to the utoman sootl before her death. "

¶38

On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would submrt that the

¶39

(2009) l(r Suprcmc Court Cascs 35

¶40

)

¶41

presumption undcr Section 113-B of the Indian Evidencc Act is attrur'ted sir-rce the death had tal<en^place "r,ithin seven years of marriage. [t is specilic case of thc^p;trents of the cleceased that there was demand of additional^{,1owry ol} Rs.50,OOO/ and that the said demand is^{proximateto thc} death of the deceased. In the said^{circum:ltances,} conviction cannot be set aside

¶42

Aclmittecll),, the allegation of^{demz ndol} Rs.50,OO0/- towards don,ry was not made at the,:arliest point of time and subsequently developed duritrg^thc course of evidence before the trial Court.^{PWl lurther} admitted that he has not stated before^{the Policeth at the} appellant beat the deceased and ear rings^{were b roken.} Further, accused No.l snatched a'r,ay the^{gold chainof his} daughter. PW1 also admitted^{that he did not state irefore} the Police that the^{appellant was suspectingcharac[erof} his daughte r.^{The alleged panchayatwas held accordingto} PW 1 , after appetlant^{snatchedthe gold chain ol. the} deceased. The said^{snatching of the gold chain isan} improvement during^{the courseof trial. It is not mentioned}

}

ln the complairlt nor in the statemcnt^{recordcclullcler} Section 161 of the Criminal^{ProcedureCodc.PW3 is an} indcpendent witness $'ho stated before thc Court th.ll^a pancha,l,at ',r,as held in his presence and tl'rc apPcllarnt stated that the deceased was not being sent to^{lcacl nl:rrit:rl} Iife n,ith the appellant. For the said reason, PW3^carlied Pw1, PW2 and the deceased. PWl and PW2 stated that since the appellant snatched a{ray the gold cltair-r therc^u'as a quarrel

¶47

I O. As seen from the evidence of the^ri itnesses, the appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the deccased^u'as continuously staying in the house of her parents.^'lhere was an a-Itercation regarding the deceased staying in her parents' house and the appellant allegedly beat her eLnd snatched her gold chain. The said incident cannot be termed as 'demand for additional dowry' as argued b-v the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In the background of several developments made during the course of their evidence regarding harassment and also not stating anything about Rs.50,OOO/- demand as additional dow,ry,

(, .-

the convic'tion f<rr thc ofle itce unde r Section 3O4.B of IPC cannot bc sustaincd

¶53

I I . As held l;,v the Honourabie Supreme Court, the crllelty or harassment sl-rould have been fol or in cottnection rvith demancl lor dou,ry,. The said dernand of Rs.50,OO0/ is an omission. Horvever, in the comtlaint it is vaguel,v stated that thcre was demand for additional dolvr_v. From the reading of the evidence of the witnesses, there u,ere ciifferer-rces in between the spouses. The appellant vuas complaining about the deceased not itaying with h im to lead marital life. Further the deceast:d was beaten in her parents' house. The said acts amoLnts to cruelty. Hoivever, the ingredients of Section 3O4-B of IPC are lacking, unless it is proved by the prosecution that the deceased lvas harassed for additional dowry, soon lefore her death, no conviction can be recorded under^Section 3O4-B of IPC. For the^reason of^{prosecutionnot proving} the allegation of demand of additional^dowryof Rs.50,OOO/ , the conviction for the^{offence underSection4} of the Act, 196 1, is unsustainable.^{In vien' of the alove,}

I I

)

ttre Judgment ol Conviction :rnd Sentence passcd br. thc trial Cor-rrt, is sct aside

¶59

Hourever, narratiotr of the witnesses inclicatc that tl'rc appcllant acted cruelly by beating the cleccasecl. Tl-re said acts of the appellant amounts to offence r-rnder Section 498-4 of IpC. The appeliant is convicted for the offence under Section 4gg-A of IpC and the appell:rnt/ accused is sentenced to the period alrczrd_v ,ndergone. Fir-re of Rs.1,000/, which has alread' bt.en deposired before the trial Court.

¶60

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partl_r, allowed. The appellant is found guilty and convicted lor tl're oflence under Section 49g-A of IpC and sentenced to the period already undergone.

¶61

As a sequel, pending Miscellaleous Applications. il

¶62

-31:Y.-c&ll_$g!d^ctosed.

¶63

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOtNI_REGtSTRAR To //TRUE COPY// secrrd( ( ln orrrcen 1. recordsThe tV Additionat if any) District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar (with 2 3 The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, NaraYanpet, Mahabubnagar District 4. Two C Cs The Su perintendent, District Jail Mahabub nagar (By Speed Post) Hyderaba d (ouT 5 to the Public Prosecu tor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6 Two CD Copies kam One CC to M/s. D.SANGEETHA REDDY, Advocare IOpUCj

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20t0il2023

JUDGMENT

51 A T E
,) C)
ts z
stt .L
\ $ I
o )
I o F. oj;.f (
-=,

¶69

CRLA.No.1156^{of 2010}

¶70

PART^{LY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL}

Patnam Kistaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patnam Kistaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Rajesh Vs Smt. N.Rekha

Shaik Latheef Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Aijaz Vs Aliya Sultana

Gandi Kondalu Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Kudula Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri N.v.Sudhakar Vs a.R.Rao