Partly allowed

Kumbham Suresh Reddy (A1) v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Telangana HC5 Jul 2023CRLA/968/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal against conviction for dowry death and cruelty was partially allowed. The High Court quashed the Section 304-B conviction due to lack of proximate dowry demand evidence but upheld Section 498-A conviction for mental cruelty, remanding the sentence to time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304-B IPC is set aside; conviction under Section 498-A IPC is maintained; sentence under Section 498-A IPC reduced to period already undergone.

Kumbham Suresh Reddy (A1) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I t

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

t I I t

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY t TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 968 OF 2013

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C against the Judgment d1.14.11.2013 in SC.No.683 of 2012 on the fire of the Judge, Famiry Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. i

Between:

j I I

KUMBHAM SURESH REDDy (A1), S/o.Sudhrshan Reddy, Occ:Material Executive Suri Engineers Pvt., Ltd., R/o. plot No.g, Mansoorabad, Saroonagar, Ranga Reddy Hyd.,

¶12

...APELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF A.P. REP., BY tTS pp, Rep, by its pubtic prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPODENT/COM PLAINANT.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant :SR!. T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶17

The Court made the following:JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.968 of 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The Crirninal Appcal is filed questioning the^judgment in S.C. No.683^(,1' 2O),2 datcd 121.11.2013 passed by rhe Family Court-cum-Addrtional Distrjr:t and Sessions Judge, Nzrlgonda.

¶22

The appt llant u'as r:onvicted for the offenr:es under Section 304 B r,l the Indian I'],'nal Code, 1860 (for short 'l.P.C.') and sentencr:d to undergo rigorous imprisonment frrr a period of ) 10 years anrl 1rtrther- the klrrned Sessions Judge inflicted the punishment o1' I u,o years for t he offence under Section 498-A of IPC

¶23

The c:rsc of the pnrsrc rrtion is that the dect:ased was married with Ar:r:used No.1 ,rn 06.08.2009. At the time of marriage an an:ount of Rs. 1il.OO,0OO/- (Rupees Thirleen lakhs only) was given torn ards dos'r1-. After marriage, l.he deceased was living l-rappily for some tirne and she gave birth to a son. PW I father stzrlcd that aft,rr marriage of the deceased, she informed that arl the accuscrl lrsed to harass her for additional dowry of Rs.5,Ct0,O00/- (Rrrpces Five Lakhs only) which was promised at thc time o[ m.tr r-iage. In spite of all thc requests

¶24

¶25

KS,J Crl.A.No.968 of 2013

¶26

¶27

made by PWl, accused continued to harass the deceased. On 24.1O.2O11, the deceased went to her^parent's house for^Diwali and on 25.10.2011, when PWl returned from school, he^found that the deceased was in unconscious condition and was shifted to Hyderabad Aware Global Hospital, where the doctor declared her dead. The next day complaint was hled.

¶28

During the course of investigation, the police collected Ex.P2, which is the letter written by the deceased before committing suicide.

¶29

)5. Learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs.l to 14 and marking Exs.Pl to P11, found that no evidence was made out against Accused Nos.2 and 3 and acquitted them. However, the appellant was convicted as stated above.

¶30

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant wouid submit that the death of the deceased was in the house of PWlfather of the deceased. Except stating that there was harassment for balance amount of dowry, no specihc incident narrated to show that the deceased was harassed. However, the deceased went to her parent's house and there she committed suicide. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the absence of evidence of any dowry demand in proximit5r with the

¶31

KS,l Crl.A No.()(,8 ol20l:l

¶32

suicide of the rlcceased, no r:rse under Section 304-B of the

¶33

I.P.C is made ou t.

¶34

7 . The learnld Senior corLn scl rclied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Suprem,: Court reportcd in Gtnsh Stngh Vs. State oJ Uttarakhandl.

¶35

Thus, it carr be seen that the offence created ,ty Section .)01 I) requires the follouring elements to be presenl irt order that it mag apply: i. Within 7 gears of the marriage, there must hctppen the death t)f e Luoman (the uife). ii. The deatlt nutst be caused by any bunts or^tndily injury.

¶36

¶37

The death ntltst occur othenuise thart unde r no, t nal circumst a t t ce s.

¶38

iiiIt must be estcrblished that soon before her deatlt. She u.,r.rs subjected to cnteltg or harassmt'nt.

¶39

iu. The aueltu tr harassment mag be by her husbLutd or any relalitte of Lrcr husband.

¶40

v. The cnteltrl or harassment b11 the husband c;r relatiue o.f tle husband must be for, or in connertinrL urith, antl rletnand for dowry.

¶41

The foremosi aspect to be established bg the ,trosecutiott i.s tirat there taas reliable euiden.ce to shotu thal tLte ruoman was subjected to cntelty or harassmertt by her husband or his relatiues uthich must Ir for or in connection utith any denrcLnd for doturtl. soon before her deoth. Before tl e presumptiort is raised, it must be establish,'d that the tt'ottlen uas subjected by sttch person to cntelty or hatassment and it is not ang cntelty tttat becomes the subject-matter of the prouisron but it is tlrc ouelttq or harassment for or

¶42

r (2020) 1B Suprenrc Cr,urtf3sq:423

¶43

¶44

KS,I Crl.A.No.968 of2013

¶45

¶46

in connection with demand for dowry.

¶47

He also relied on the^judgment of the Hon'ble^Supreme

¶48

Court in Charan Singh @ Charanfit Sfngh^{Vs. The State} of tlttarakhand2. In the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the prerequisite of invoking^presumption under Section 1 13 B of IPC has been fulfilled by the prosecution, the death being unnatural cannot form basis for convlctlon.

¶49

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would :submit that the evidence of demand for additional dowry for an amount of Rs.2,0O,000/- is consistent. The said demand was prior to her death. As such, the ingredients of 3O4-B are fulfilled.

¶50

i 0. The Public Prosecutor further submits that the plot was registered in the name of the deceased prior to her marriage. It can be safely presumed that only on account of the demands made by the appellant, such registration was done in favour of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

1 1 . The relevant document to ascertain about the^alleged

¶52

,2023 Livc Law sC 341

¶53

KS,I Crl A.No.968 ol 2013

¶54

¶55

demand lor dori r1, prior to lrt'r death is Ex.P2 whi<:h letter was written by the ,leceasecl pri, r' for committing sui(:ide . In the said letter, ther-c is a na:-r-rr L ion about her conflict with her husband on scvrrral issues. l'he deceased further u,rote in the said Ietter that shc was not lrrrppy with her husband on account of the indifferelrt atlitllde ol' the husband. For every sma1l reason, the huslrand used to ptrss remarks and didn't speak to her in the normirl wav and conlinuously passed comments and never lived up trr thc cxpectirri,)ns of a wife. All such incidents were forcing her to commil suit ide. She further wrote that there ; are differences of opinion in l;etlvecn wife and husband and since the mentality of the :tc'r'r rsed did not match, her marital life was totallv u:rhappy and shc did not want to live.

¶56

As stated hy the Hon'b1r' Supreme Court to attract Section 3O4-B of IPC, t. tere should itave been demand Lr. 616srry in proximity with dr:ath.^'l'he yrrosecution is further obligated to prove that therc rvas harassrnt.nt soon before the death. Unless such initial burcten is discha r11ecl by prosecution, only for the reason of the sui,:iclal death, it ('ilnnot be inferred that the death was on account of dowry harrrrssrnenL lalling within 304-8 of the IPC.

¶57

f' E

¶58

KS,l Crl.A.No.968 of 2013

¶59

¶60

¶61

As seen from the letter, the husband had ill-treated^the deceased. Several incidents are narrated wherein^{the husband} used to pass comments. Due to such harassment by^the husband, the deceased found that her mind set was^not compatible with the mindset of the husband. Such attitude^and conduct of the husband passing remarks continuously resulting in injury to the mental health of the wife amounts to cruelty as explained under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶62

As seen from the narration in Ex.P2 that there was no ,. physical abuse or any kind of demand of additional dowry. However, on various issues, the husband was passing remarks and ill-treated the deceased. On account of such ill-treatment, this Court finds that the appeliant has committed an offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶63

It is represented that the son of the deceased is with the appellant and he is now aged about 1O years. Keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC to the period already undergone.

¶64