Partly allowed

Nallolla Jangaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLA/340/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC, the High Court held that without explicit mention of dowry demand in the dying declaration, the presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act could not sustain the conviction. The conviction was quashed, but a new conviction for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC was imposed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment. Sentences remitted to Trial Court.

Nallolla Jangaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³²⁵¹ I

¶2

Bail Slio: The Petitioner was^{directed to be releasedon bail vide order dated 2510212010ln} ' Crl.A.MP No.457 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.340 of 2010'

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMI NAL APPEAL^{NO:340oF 2010}

¶8

AppealunderSection3T4(2)ofCr.P.CAggrieved-bythejudgmentdated.l9.022010 paised in S.C.^{No. 340of 2OOgon the file of the Court of the ll AdditionalDistrict} and Sessions^{Judge (FTC), SangaReddy.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nallolla Jangaiah, S/o.^{Narsaiah, agedabout 25 years, Fl/o- UrellaVillage, chevella Mandal,} Ranga Reddy^District.

¶11

...APELLANT/A1

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High CourtofAndhraPradesh'} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

CRLAMP.^{NO: 457 OF 2010}

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} grounds of Appeal, the High court^{may be pleasedto suspendthe operation} -of^the i"rt"n"" imposed in the^{ju-dgmentdatea 19-02-2010made in S.C. No. 340 of 2009 by} G fi AOAf. bi.tri"t &^{SesiioisJudge (FTC), Sanga Reddy by releasingthe petitioner/} A l on bail,^pending disposal^{of the criminal appeal.}

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. M PRATAP SINGH}

¶18

counsel for the Respondent:^{Mrs.sHAL|NlSAXENA, Assistant PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

1 t

¶21

T IIi HON',BLE SRI IUSICE K. SLIRII^\lllER t RIMINAL APPEAL NO. 340 CIF 2i|lO

¶22

IUf)CMI]NT:

¶23

This crir.:r r;rl appeal is filed aggtieved by I':^j,rdgmentof conviction rrl' th, appellant/ accused^{dated 19.02..201Cirr S.C.No.340 of} 2009 on the file of II Additional District and^'3esskrns Jrrdge^(FTC), Sanga Reddv, fr r the offence punishable under^{Secir.rnl]04-B of the} Indian I'enal C de (for short^'the IPC') and^sentr:tr<:ed to^undergo Rigorous Lnpris^rt-,ment for seven years.

¶24

Heartl M. M. Prathap Singh, learned <orrnsel for^the appellant/accus 'ci and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, leerme,l^{l\ssistantPublic} Prosecutor

¶25

The case c the prosecution is that father of the deceasecl/P.W.1 performed mar iage of the deceased with the appellant/accused three months pr o" to the death of the deceasect. Ac:crding to P.W.1 cash of I1s.50,0(l /- and four tulas of gold was giver l,: the appellant towards dowrv lrifteen days tl-rere aJter the app,e ll;rnt and others started harassin ' lhe victim girl for additional dor.r.ry of Rs.50,000/-.

¶26

2 KS,J CRLA 340 2010

¶27

Two months after the marriage deceased went to her parents house. When she was asked to return her in-laws house she committed suicide due to fear. On the basis of the statements made by the witnesses, police filed charge sheet for offence under Section 304-8 of the IPC.

¶28

Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses and found that there was a demand for additional dowry and deceased died within three months of marriage. Since there is a presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant accordingly. However, the other accused Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted {or the reason that the deceased had not stated against them in her dying declaration.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC are not made out since there is no harassment seen before her death. He relied on the judgment of "Major Singh o. State of Punjab"l in Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2012,

'zors^{(s)scc zor}

KS,l :RLA 340 2010

dated 08.04.20 15 lhe Hon'ble Supreme^{Court helcltlra t to sustain the} conviction urlc 'r' Section 3048 IPC, the^{f<lllttvr'in11 essential}

¶34

ingredients hav< tc, be established:

¶35

or 'e death of a woman^{should be cau,x'dby} bunt, or bodily injury or othenoise thnn undr:rⁿ 'norn al circumstance';

¶36

(i0 itch a death should haoe occurred u,ithin selreh (07) years of lw marriage;

¶37

(iii) 'ilrc must lmtte been subjectcd to crn,zitrr or lmras ntent by her lusband or any relftioe of lrcr husbr tul;

¶38

(io) , uch cruelty or harassment should be.for or in COWIt 'tlotr toith denmnd of doury; and

¶39

:tt.h cruclttl or lmrassment is sltottttr lo lrazte k): been ineted out to the uoman soon befor,: lrcr death

¶40

IJ any deatlr is caused in conru:ctiorr tpith dowr lemand, Section 113-8 of tlu Et,idcncz ,Act nlstt r nnes into play. Botlt these sections, !)tclion .104-l c,f IPC and Section 113-8 of the L)r'i,|t'nce Act u'ere inserted by Dowry Prohibilion (Amt rament) Act 43 of 1986 toith a tr,ieu' to contb t the hrcreasing menace of dozory ,il'nfhs. 5ecti, ;t 113-8 reads as follotos:

¶41

'113 B, PresumTttion ns to clotory dtatbWtett tlrc quesl trr is rtthether o person has conrmitle I tlrc doutr death o.f n Tttontafi nnd it is shotttn tltut srtott bt.fiirr her death strclt ttroman has been subjet:tetl by *rch ,t:rson to cnteltl qg harassment for, r in

¶42

¶43

KS,J CRLA 340 2010

¶44

connection uith, any demand for darury, the Court shall presume that such person had caused tl'Le dowry death.

¶45

Explanation: For tb puryoses of this section 'dozory death' shall haoe the same meaning as in Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

¶46

It is imperatiae to note that both these sections set out a common point of reference for establishing guilt of the accused person under Section 304-8 of the IPC, which is "the woman must haoe been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment 'for or in connection with the demand for^dowry"'.

¶47

On the other hand iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶48

submitted that she died within three months of the marriage and the Iogical inference on the basis of dying declaration is that she was subjected to harassment for additional dowry.

¶49

The deceased's dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate. She stated that the mother-in-law was admonishing her and asking for money. The appellant beat her as such she went to her mother's house. The appellant called up the mother of the deceased

¶50

and asked her to bring back the deceased to his house. She

¶51

KS,J CRLA 340 2010

¶52

comnitted sui(^{C,r as she did not want to go ba':.< to the house of} husbantl drrr.' L,r tis^fear

¶53

8 Though t ere is^{no specific mention of Rs'li0'{t00/- additional} dowry in the^{'eclaration,however, P.W.1/lather} '.)f^{lhe deceased} stated that^{therrra'as a demand of Rs.50,000/-.}

¶54

Neither I V/.1 nor any^{other family membersIrarrated any} incident that h ppenecl^{prior to the deceaseclgoilrll to her parents} house.^'Ihe clec ar;ed^{committed suicideafter onen1,)I'-thof stay in her} parents house.^{\ttcording to the deceased she tlid not rvant to go back} to the husband^{, house for the reason that husban,l/,rppellarrtwould} abuse her verbe^[1..

¶55

The alleg, I^{demandfor dowrywas not spe,:ifi':ally mentioned} by the decc'ase< i-r^her dying^{declaration.She statr:rl that she did not} want to go bacl t,r the^house of^her husband.^{It is .hie ntother-in-law} who harassed rr money while^{she was stayingv'ilh her husband,} according to c ring declaration.^{However, as} tlt:^{deceased was} stayzing since o e month in the^{house of her} Pareirrs^{and there is no}

KS,J CRLA 340 2010

mention in the dying declaration that the husband asked for

¶60

Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the conviction under Section 304-B of the IpC. However, the element of cruelty is present in the case.

¶61

1L. Since the deceased was treated cruelly during the stay in the appellant's housg this Court deems it appropriate to convict the appellant for the offence under section 498-Aofthe IpC and sentenced to six (06) months imprisonment. The fine component is unaltered. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve remaining period of sentence. The

¶62

imprisonment he has already undergone is set off.

¶63

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶65

To,

¶66

Sd/.C.V.MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOTNTJTEGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// secr8Porncsn

¶67

The ll Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Sangareddy.(with Records if any)

¶68

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sangareddy.

¶69

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶70

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶71

fhe Station House Officer, Kondapur^police Station, Medak District - _ ^. co.^.tl ^ ^-

¶72

Two Ccs to PUBL^{) PROSECUTOR, High Court for the Sta e of 1'elangana at} Hyderabad [OPUC'

¶73

One CC to SRl.^{l',/ TRATAP SINGH,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶74

/^{a. fwoCD Copies}

Pt'ta"

HIGH COURT

KS, J DATED:'11,tA1'^{t l:.t23}

¶79

JUDGMENT

¶80

CRLA.No.34O^r f²⁰¹⁰

¶81

1-a:i::
nit \a. sl 1I€-
C
t- +{
c ;
L) ? 4 ,\tJE 2SIl C)
-o
\i *

¶82

PARTLY ALLC II/ING

¶83

THE CRL..APF iir\l-

¶84

Qon'u-' -*\d,/5

Nallolla Jangaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallolla Jangaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Syed Younus Ali Khizar Vs Tanveer Begum

Nimmala Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of A.P

P. Venkatesh Vs Kotta Raghuvaedhan Reddy

Bakka Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Marupaka Lokanatham, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Spl Pp for Acb., City RANGE-1