Partly allowed

Reddipally Srinu, Nalgonda District and 2 Others v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024CRLA/32/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Venugopal J) dismissed the criminal appeal regarding a dowry death case. Findings were overturned to reflect a different degree of crime. Conviction of husband (A1) quashed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of A1 under Sec. 304-B IPC quashed; conviction for Sec. 498-A IPC ordered; fines and restitution adjusted; Conviction and sentence against A2 and A3 set aside; Ancillary provisions included

Reddipally Srinu, Nalgonda District and 2 Others… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[,"t:!:'x,;HB:x,f^{i?[f ?:,?#il1i.s,.fl} l;s:dl".T*iB,?,iLod,lx"

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FORor r"o.J*ro?r#E^{oF rELANGANA}

¶3

[^32ee ]

¶4

"H?6Ir'Jr=rI'$o'11'JIf,,PfI""IJ[A*",

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

cRt MINAL AP PEAL NO:32 OF 2011

¶8

criminar Appear Under section 374(2) of cr.p.c against the Judgment Dated 20-01-2011 in s c. No. 510 0f 2009 0n the fire or trre- court of the , Additionar Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 ft:[113:tisJilu'^{S/o chandraiah,R/o.Ananthasiri} virase, Kodad Mandar,

¶11

' fi:ll'5:'ll",3sl11g[i'^{rr'lochandraiah} Rl/o. Ananthagiri Village, Kodad ' fi*fl'5:'lL,r'*il'flill;, "" Anthaiah RYo. Ananthagiri Mllage, Kodad

¶12

AND

¶13

...APELLANTS/ACCUSED

¶14

TheStateof A.p., Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Courtof A.p.,Hyderabad

¶15

,..RESPODENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants '^g; J;'#'"t# '8;.TJ:ff^{, represe} nting

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : public prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{No.32 of 2O11}

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Criminal Appeal^{ispreferred bythe} appellants/Al to A3,^{seeking to set-aside the judgment} dated 20.01.2011 in^{S.C.No'510of 2OO9passed by the} learned II Additional^{SessionsJudge, Nalgondaat} Suryapet, wherein^{and whereby A1 to A3 were found guilty} for the offence^{punishableunder Section 304-8of IPC and} while A1 was sentenced^{to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment} for a period of^{Ten (1O) years, A2 and ,A.3 were sentenced to} undergo Rigorous Imprisonment^{for a period of Seven (7)} years. A1 is also convicted^{for the offence punishable under} Section 3 of the^{Dowry ProhibitionAct, 196 Iand} sentenced to undergo^{RigorousImprisonment for a period} of Five (5) years and^{also to pay a fine of Rs'15,000/-} (Rupees fifteen thousand^{only) and, in default of payment} of fine amount, to^{undergo simple imprisonmentlor a} period of five (5) months.^{A1 was furtherconvictedfor the} offence punishable under^{Section 4 of theDowry}

¶23

EW,J Crl.A.No 32^{of 20l I}

¶24

2-t0

¶25

ProhibitionAct,lg6landsentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment^{for a periodof six (6) monthsand also to pay} a fine of^{Rs.3,OOO/-ald,in default of paymentof fine} amount, to^{undergo simple imprisonmentfor a period of} three^{(3) months'A2 and A3 were not found guilty for the} offence under^{Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act'} 1961. It^{was furtherdirected that the sentencespassed} against^{A1 shall run concurrently whilegiving set off to the} period of remand^{already undergone by all the accused} under Sectiorr^{428 of Cr'P'C'}

¶26

For the sake^{of convenience' the partiesherein are} referred to^{as they were arrayedin Sessions Case No'510of} 2009.

¶27

The brief^{facts of the case are that the marriageof the} deceased^{ReddipallyKavitha was performed with A1 on} 14.08.2008.^{At the time of marriage'the parents of the} deceased^{i.e., PWl and PW2 presented 5 tulas of gold'} 15 tulas^{of silver and cash of Rs'60'00O/-towards dowry to} theaccused.Afterthemarriage,thedeceasedjoinedthe compary^{of A1/husbandand led a happy marital life for a}

¶28

DW,J 3-t0 GL.A No^{32 of2O11}

¶29

period of^{three months' Subsequently'A 1 to ,{3 started} mentally^{forwartt of} harassing^her PhYsicallY^and On2O.O4.2OO9,^{A1 to A3} additional^{dowry of Rs'5O,O0O/-'} had beaten^{her indiscriminatelyand kickedher out from} matrimonial^{home. On 2B'O4'2OO9at about 8:30 p'm''} having^{vexed with the life due to the harassment ol' her} husband^{and in-laws, with an intention to commit suicide'} she poured^{Kerosene on her body and lit Iire ald sustained} burn injuries^{and she was shifted to CommunityHealth} Centre,^{Kodad, and from there' she was referred to} Khammam^{Hospital for better treatment and on the way to} Khammam^{Hospital, she succumbed toburns on} 29.O4.2OO9^{at 4:30 a'm'}

¶30

Basing on^{the complaint lodgedby P'W'l' a case ln} Crime No.65^{of 2OO9 was registeredagainst A1 to A3 and} after filing^{of charge sheet, the learned JudicialMagistrate} of First Class,^{Kodad, has committed the case to the} District&SessionsDivision,Nalgonda,aftercompletionof necessarY formalities'

¶31

I /

¶32

¶33

4-10 EW,J CrLLNo.32 of 2011

¶34

The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Medak took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC arld Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and numbered it as S.C.No.510 of 2009 and made over the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶35

The II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet framed charges against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 304-8 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

¶36

7 . In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants/accused before the trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. I to 18 were examined and Exs.Pl to P14 were marked, besides marking M.O.l. In defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced, except marking Ex.Dl-relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.p.C. statement of P.W.4.

¶37

.8. The triafficurt, on appraisal of entire evidence, both \ oral and documentar5r, held that the prosecution proved

¶38

¶39

¶40

E\TV,J 5- l0 C.LA No 32^oI2011

¶41

the guilt^{of A1 to A3 for the offences with which they were} charged and,^{accordingly, convictedand sentencedthe} accused as^{cited supra. Aggrieved by thesame' the} appellants/A1^{to,,{3 have f,rled the present Criminal} Appeal.

¶42

g. Heard Mr. Naidu, learned^{SeniorCounsel} representing^{Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary' learned counsel for} the appellants/Al^{to A3 andlearnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor^{appearingfor the respondent-State' Perused the} record.

¶43

Learned^{senior counsel for the appellantscontended} thattheoralevidenceofPWlandPW2withregardtothe ill treatment^{and harassmentcaused by the accusedsoon} before the death^{of the deceasedis not trustworthyand} if at all there^{would have been any illtreatmentand} harassment^{meted out by the deceasedreally during her} life time, as^{deposed by PWl and PW2, they u'ould have} held a panchayat or^{complained before the policervith} regard tq-such harassment.^{He furthercontended that PW7} and PW8 turned^{hostile and did not support the caseo{ the}

¶44

EW,J CrLA.No.32 of2011

¶45

6-t0

¶46

prosecution with regard to harassment for additional dowry. He further contented that under Ex.Pl2-dying declaration, the deceased stated that about one week prior to the incident, her husband beat her with a stick as she did not cut the crop and did not attend household works properly, due to which she became angry and set herself ablaze after one week. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that soon before her death, there was any ill-treatment or harassment by the accused for demand of additional dowry, therefore, the provisions of Section 3O4-B of IPC will not attract. Apart from that, the prosecution failed to prove that at the time of marriage, A1 was presented a cash of Rs.60,000 /- and there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.SO,OOO/- from A'1 to A3 He further relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhola Ram vs State of Punjabr, Sunil Baiaj us State of 114.p.2, Rajeea Kumar os State of Earyanas and a-lso a decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gogula Ramanaiah as State of Andhra

¶47

' 1zo^{n; to scc+zr} ' lzoot;m^{e scc +ru} I lzor:; to scc oao

¶48

¶49

D\ry,J 7 -lo C A.No.32^{of 2CI I}

¶50

Pradeshq and^{hence,sought to set-asidethe impugned} judgment dated 20.01.2011^{in S'C'No'S10of 2OO9'}

¶51

1 1. Per^{contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecul'or} contendedthatthereisnoinconsistencyordiscrepancyin the testimony^{of prosecutionwitnesses,which establishes} that the^{deceasedcommittedsuicide due tothe} harassment^{meted out by her in the hands of her husband} and in-laws.^{He further contended that there are no} grounds much^{less valid grounds to interfere with the} impugned^{judgmentand, therefore, soughtfor dismissal of} the apPeal.

¶52

A perusal^{of materialavailable on recordshows that} on 2O.O4.2O09^{A1 to A3 picked up a quarrel with the} deceased and^{necked her out of matrimonial houseand} one week^{thereafteri.e., on 28'04} '2OO9,^{she attemptedto} commit suicide^{bypouring Keroseneon herand} succumbed to^{the burnson the early hours of 29'O4'2OO9'} This Court is^of the^{consideredview that Section 304-8IPC} will not attract^{in view of the fact that soon beforeher}

¶53

n zots (z) ALd (crl.) 135

¶54

EW,J CrI A.No.32 of2011

¶55

8-r0

¶56

-,1 I

¶57

death, there was no ill-treatment or harassment^for demand of additional dowry by the appellants,^{as alleged} by the prosecution.

¶58

As per the testimony of^PW. 17^andPW.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police and^{Sub-DivisionalPolice} Ofhcer, respectively, a case in^{Cr.No.65 of 2OO9was} registered for the offences^{punishableunder Section 498-A} of IPC and Sections 3 and^{4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct and} subsequently, the Section of^{law was altered to Sections3} and 4 of Dowry Prohibition^{Act and Section 3O4-B of IPC.}

¶59

t4. Besides the testimony^{of PW.16JudicialMagistrateof} First Class, Kodad, in the^{Dying Declaration of the} deceased under Ex.P12 dated^{28.04.2OO9at 11:30 pm the}

¶60

deceased stated as follows^:

¶61

"about one ueek back her husband^{beat her uith a stick} on the a-spect of cutting of crop^{and heaLso abusedher} father^{ouer telephoneand th.ereupon shebecameangry} touards LLer husband and^{due to thatreosonshe herself} poured Kerosene on lLer person at^{9:3O p.m., on that night} and set her abla-ze. She also^{addedthat her mother-in-} lau olso abused her and^onlg for^{that reasonher} lrusband beat ller".

¶62

I I I I I I I

¶63

]]VV'J 9- 10 Crl.A.No.32^of2011

¶64

15.^{From the above, it is clear that the appellant/Alused} to quarrel^{with the deceased-wife frequently and used tc'} beat^{her for not attending agricultural work properly'} Therefore,^{though A1/husband is liable to be convicted for} the^{offence punishableunder Section498-A IPC' the tria'l} Court^{erred in convicting the accused for a grievous offence} punishable^{under Section 3O4-B of IPC' However'the} matter^{need not be remitted to the trial court for framing} charge^{underSection498-A of IPC' The evidence adduced} isnotsufficienttoprovetheallegedchalgesagainstA2and A3.^{Hence,prosecution failedto prove the alleged chargeof} .Section^{3O4-B of IPC against A2 and A3'}

¶65

dismissing^{theCriminalAPPeal,} 16.^{AccordinglY, while} by the^{trial Court against the} the conviction^recorded appellant/Al^{is convertedfrom Section304-8 of IPC to} that of^{Section498-A of IPC and appellant/Al is sentenced} to undergo^{simple imprisonmentfor a period of 1 year and} directed^{to pay a fine of Rs'50'O0O/- to the credit of trial} Court^{in S.C.No'S10 of 2OO9' out of which' the legal heirs} of the^{deceasedare permittedto withdraw an amor'rnt' of}

¶66

l0-10

¶67

EW,J Crl.A No.32 oI 2Ot l

¶68

Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court arrd Rs.1,000/_ sha_ll remain with the State. Whereas the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against appellants/A2 and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 3O4_B IpC is hereby set off.

¶69

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

¶70

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER