Partly allowed

Talari Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024CRLRC/732/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 304-B IPC of the dowry death act. The court held that the accused's demand for money years after marriage did not constitute dowry. However, the court sustained the conviction and sentence for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Set aside conviction under Section 304-B IPC; convict petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment of one year.

Talari Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

Bail Slip: The Petitioner/^{Accusedwas directedto be released on bail b-y the-order} of the High court dated.2g.o4.2009^{in crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2009in crl.R.c.No.732 of} 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:732OF^2OOg

¶7

Revision filed under Sections 397 &^{401 of Cr.P.C., Against the judgment} daled 28.04.2009^passed in Crl.A.No.^{4412007on the file of the Court of the ll} Additional District and Sessions Judge^{(FTC)at Sangareddypreferred against the} Judgment dated: 29.06.2007^{passed in SC.No. 267 ot 2005 on the file of the} Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge^{at Sangareddy.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Talari Srinivas, S/o. Satyanarayana aged 27 years, Occ: Pvt.Service,^{R/o. H.No} 5-45, Patelguda, H/o. Kistareddypet (V), Patancheru (M), Medak District

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED^No-1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of A.P., through rep by State Public^{Prosecutor, High Courtof A.P., at} Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT'RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri^{Ravi KumarVeluri (Legal Aid)}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent:^{The Asst. Public Prosecutor}

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREITDER

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.732 OF 2OO9

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

1 . The revision petitioner/A 1 is the husband who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-8 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.267 of 2005, dated 29.06.2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. The said conviction was confirmed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Sangareddy vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2OOZ, dated 28.04.2OO9.

¶21

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to the revision petitioner/A l/accused three years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, Rs. 10,0O0/- cash was given as dowr5z along with three tulas of gotd and other household articles. Son was born to them. On the day of function of the child, accused demanded for scooter or Rs.20,000 /- to be paid. The father of the deceased p.W. I promised that the amount would be paid after six months. However, accused started harassing the deceased td get Rs.20,OOO/-. The said demand was informed by the deceased to P.W. 1, as such, p,W. 1 requested the accused and also the parents-in-law not to harass the deceased. P.w. 1 also informed that money woulci be paid after selling

¶22

¶23

the land. Due to the intervention of elders including P.W.9 and others, the deceased started Iiving with accused. A1 was also requested not to harass the deceased. On 05.07.2005, the deceased died by hanging herself. The next day on 06.07.2005, complaint was liled by p.W. l, which is Ex.Pl.. The police, having investigated the case, frled charge sheet against A1 and two others.

¶24

l,earned trial Judge, examined P.Ws.l to 13 and Exs.Pl to P2l were also brought on record by the prosecution. Learned trial Judge four.,d that the allegation against A2 and A3 were vague and not sufficient to attract ingredients under Section 3O4-B IPC and accordingly acquitted them. However, Al was convicted.

¶25

In appeal hled before the learned Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction against accused/A 1.

¶26

Since the counsel was not appearing continuously, this Court appointed Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, retired District Judge as legal aid counsel.

¶27

karned legal aid counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any harassment soon before death. He relied on the judgment of Hon'le Supreme Court in tlle case of Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC Online SC 1369, dated 19.1O.20231 and argued

I ,i

that the evidence of parents, which is hearsay was taken into consideration. In fact, none of the independent witnesses have specifrcally stated about any harassment. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before death her death to term the death as dowry death. In the absence of ingredients of Section 304-8 IPC being satished, the accused has to be acqrritted.

¶32

On ttre other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the death happened within seven years of the marriage and there is presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the death was on account of dowry harassment. Complainl. was filed by P.W. 1, wtrich is Ex.P1 and also in the statement made before the Court, it was specifrcally alleged that Rs.2O,O00/- was demanded for the purpose of purchasing vehicle. Though it .rzas promised that the amount would be arranged after selling the land, harassment continued. In the said circumstances, both the Courts below have correctly convicted the accused/A1

¶33

The main allegation, which was relied on by both the Courts below is the demand for Rs.20,0OO/- that was made for the purpose of purchase of vehicle. No where it is mentioned by any of the witnesses that the said Rs.2O,00O/- was demalded in connection with marriage. If

¶34

(

¶35

¶36

ttre amount was demanded for purchase of vehicle, nearly three years after the marriage, it does not falr within the definition of dowry since it rs not alleged that the said demand of Rs.2O,O00/- was in connection with the marriage or as additionar dowry. In the absence of proof that Rs.2O,OOO/- that was demanded was towards additional dowry, said dema,d does not fa, within the derrnition of dowry, as such, conrriction under Section 304_El IpC calnot be maintained.

¶37

9' However' it is consistentry stated by p-w. 1 and other witnesses that the accused was consistently demanding for Rs.20,OO0/_ ald also harassed the deceased for the reason of p.W. I not meeting the demand for Rs'20'000 /-' The said harassment for Rs.20,000/- would amount to cruelty as explained under Section 4gg_A IpC.

¶38

Though, separate charge was not framed under Section 49g_A IpC, the contents of the charge framed under Section 304_8 IpC clearly narrates the harassment by the accused for the pu{pose of meeting the demand for Rs'2''ooo/- to purchase vehicre. In the said circumstances, though separate charge was not framed, conrriction can be maintained under Section 49g_A IpC.

¶39

1 1' Since the prosecution railed to prove that the amount of Rs.2O,0O0/was towards additional dowry, conviction under Section

¶40

¶41

¶42

304-8 IPC is hereby set aside- However, the accused/Al is convicted tmder Section 4S8-A IpC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Since the apperlant is on ba , the trial court is directed to cause appearance of the accused/Al and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 42g Cr.p.C

¶43

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

//TRUE COPYII

?1;tlf?.ffi I \i

SECTION OFFICER

Diskict and sessions Judse (Frc) at Sansareddy. (with

¶50

] I!:d,t3$ltional

¶51

,il:,,ni{?y#*ixt;:::1

¶52

1eila;Asp*+t1,r1+:ffi ?. ?,13 33 t%:*^{Rnu ruunRvELURr, LesarAid} counserropucl

Pr/Ch

CHP-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010912024

ORDER CRLRC.No.732 of 2009

¶58

(
q
oI 2 8 Ni:\J 202t az
* *
a) i'_- r: ^-.1.C
::-- '.rEg.

¶59

PARTLY ALLOWING

¶60

THE CRL.RG

¶61

ur
u\Plttt

Talari Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talari Srinivas, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Bachalakura Andhra Babu Vs Bajjuri Ram Reddy

Ajmeera Chinna Suraiah Vs P. Nooka Raju and 2 Ors.

Munigala Bhaskar, Warangal District Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad

Lingam Olla. Lingaiah Vs the State of A.P.

The Roads and Buildings Vs Chituveri Arun , Arun Kumar and Anr.

Smt. Sahitya Kulkarni Vs Keerthi Kumar Pamrag