Adimulapu Vikram, Karimnagar and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated.03-03-2016 in Crl.A.lvl.P.No.317 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.19'1 of 2016.

¶2

[3251 I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 191 OF 2016

¶9

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 Q) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed in S.C.No.39 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Adimulapu Vikram, S/o. Hercules, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.Kattarampur Karimnagar.

¶12

Adimulapu Savitri, Wo. Hercules, Occ. house wife, R/o.Kaftarampur Karimnagar.

¶13

Adimulapu Raja Vikram, S/o. Hercules, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.Kattarampur Karim nagar.

¶14

...Appellants/Accused No.1 to 3

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, through lts Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶17

... Respodent

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri T S Anirudh Reddy

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1 91 0F 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

The present appeal is prqferred by thc appellant/accused Nos.t to 3 questioning the conviction under Section 304-8 of Indian penaI Code (for shorf I.P.C) sentencing theln to undergo l0 years ol'imprisonrner rt.

¶25

Pending the appeal, accused No.2 expired. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated against accused No.2.

¶26

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.1I2011 the appellanVaccused No. I was rnarried to the daughter of pW_ I . According to PW-l at the time ol maniage Rs.5,00,000/- cash, golcl ontarnonts worth Rs. I ,00,000/- and house-hold afticles wofth Rs. 1,00,000/_ were given as dowry.

¶27

After the ,rarriage the deceased started living with accuserl Nos.l to 3 at Karirnnag,r. They were happy lor a periorl of 15 clays, thereafter appellant/accused Nos. r to J started harassing the deceasetl for bringing additional dor.vry of Rs.3,00,000/- The harassment was infonred by the deceased to PW- 1, then, PW- t requested accusecr Nos. l to 3 not to ill-treat. his daughter. Howe'er, the liarassrnent continued lor ad,litionar c1owry. on 04.01 .2012 accused No. I took the deceased to the house of I_,W_ I and dropped her sa),i,g rhar rhe der..and of Rs.3,00,000/_ has to bo met for

¶28

l .11 U

¶29

2

¶30

continuing to lead conjugal life. On 05-01.2012^{at E:30 A.M.the deceased} went into her room, closed the^{doors and hangedherselfwith her chunni-} PW-l went to the police station and lodged^{written complaint whichis Ex-} P1.

¶31

The police conducted scene of^{offencepanchanama. Thereafter,} inquest proceedings rvere also completed^{and the body was sent for} postmortem examination.

¶32

The police concluded investigation and^{filed charge sheet against} accused Nos.l to 3 lor the offences^{under Section304-8of I.P.C.}

¶33

The learned Sessions Judge having^{frarned charge for the said} offence, examined the^{witnessescited by the prosecution who are PWs-1 to} l 1 and also marked^Ex-P l to^P8 documents.

¶34

The leamed Sessions Judge found that the death^{happened within} two months of rnaniage and^{thereis a specific allegationfor dernandof} additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-,^{accordingly, convictedthe appellants} sentencing thern to undergo^{irnprisonmentfor a period of l0 years.}

¶35

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of^{the appellants} submits that the incident took^place within^{two months froln the date of} marriage and the entire evidence that was^brought on^{record is only} hearsay, since the cleceased infonned^{PW-landPW-3. It appears that the} deceased was not interested in the^{rnarriage with A.l and PW-l and PW-3}

¶36

3

¶37

forcibty got her manied to accused^{No.l on the groundthat atrcusedNo.1} rvould get a^job in police departrnent on^{coulpassionate grounds.Ile further} subrnits that in the cross exatnination^{of PW-3 it is s tated thal one month} prior to the marriage, the accused came to thern "vith a^{uarriageproposal,} however, it is important to note that^lather of^accuseclNt,. l^{died on} 09.08.2011 and nonr-rally marriages will^not be^{perlormedwithinone year} after the death of the father.

¶38

Learned Senior counsel further contended that there is no specific allegation against the accused with regarcl to haras:;rnent for additional dowry but vague and ornnrbus allegations were tnacle. With l'egard to accused No-3. he is younger brother of accused No. I and he has nothing to do with the n-rarital life of accused No.l . A.3 had^just completed intennediate at the time of incident. According to PW- l,^panch ryat will be held regarding disputes between husband and rvife in their cornmunity, but in the present case, no panchayat rvas held. PW-l in his cross^('xamination has stated that he knew the father of accused No.l since 2:i years. He furlher contended that after the registration of the crime, ac;used No.l could not get^job on coLnpassionate grounds. PW-2 categoricall'/ states that police came to the house of PW- I and PW-3 alter fifteen rnirrutes of the incident. But, however, no report was given at that tirne. The F.l.R. was registered only after PW- I went to the police station ar)d gave a repoft to

¶39

4

¶40

PW- I I at 10:30 A.M. Therefore, there^{is every possibilityof the repoff} being given irnplicating^{the accusedafter due deliberations.Insofaras} accused No.l is concemed, there is^{no material to attract Section304-8} IPC as the demand ol additional dowry was not^{proved beyondreasonable} doubt.

¶41

t l. The learned Senior counsel relied upon the^{judgmentof the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in the case ol' Durgo^{Prasad v. State of Madhys Pradesh.} The Hon'ble Supreme Coufi while dealing^{with the situation of dowry} death reversed the conviction^{giving benefit ofdoubton the ground that the} statements of the victim wotnan^{and brotherdid not disclose regarding} cruelty and harassment prior to the^death.

¶42

Reliance is also^placed on the^judgment of^{the Hon'ble Supretne} Court in the case of Chabi Karmokar^{v, The Stateof ll'est Bengal. The} Hon'ble Suprerne Court held that soon before^{death, therewas no forceor} compelling reasons lor the deceased to^{cotntnit suicide, in the said} circurnstances, henellt ol douhl^was exlended.

¶43

[n the case of Chabi Knrmakar v. Tlte State of^{lVest Bengal,the} Hon'ble Supreme Court has lteld as under:

¶44

In paragraph 9 of Rajinder Singh^(Supra), this Court had discussed the ingredients of Section 304-B of^IPCas follows:

¶45

"9. The rngredients of^{the offence under Section i04-BII'C} have been stated and^{restatedin manyjudgrnents Thereitre} four suclt Lngredients^{and they are said to be:}

¶46

a) death of a^{rvotnanlnust have been causedby anybumsor} bodily injury or^{her death tnust haveoccurred otltenvisethan}

¶47

. under nonnal circutnstances;

¶48

b) suctr cleath^{must have occuned within seven} l^{ears of her} rnarriage;

¶49

c) soon belore^{her death, she must have been subjectecl to} cruelty or harasstnent^{by her husbandor anyrelative of lter} husband; and

¶50

d) such cruelty or^{harassment must be in connections'ith the} dernand for dorvry."

¶51

14 The leamed^{Additional PublicProsecutor r'vo':ld subnrit that the} death occurretl within^{twornonths of the rnarriagean<l presuttlption arises} under Section I^I 3^{B of IndianEvidenceAct. No ma rriedwo man would} Cornrnit suicide^{within two rnonths unlessthere was constantharasstnent} rneted out by the^accused.

¶52

1 5. An unfc,rlunate incident^{of the deceasetlcornnt itting suicide within} two lnonths^hrrs happened.^{The allegationis that therewas a,lernandfor} Rs.3,00,000i-. Even the evidence^{of PWs-1,3 and 4 showthat the detnand} of Rs.3,00,000/- was^{tnade.The caseis tlrat the deceasedwas ill-treatecl by} accused Nos.l lo 3. However,^{what was the ill-treat|nent that was lreted} out by the appellant/accused is^{not specified. TlLough allegationof}

¶53

6

¶54

ilt-treating the deceased for^{Rs.3,00,0001and thereafterleavingthe} deceased in the house of PW-l^{on 04.01'2012is the case of the} prosecution, however, neither PW- l or PW-l stated^{aboutany additional} demand ofdowry that was^{rnade by the accused. The inlonnationregarding} the additionat dowry was through^{the deceased.However, PW-1, PW-3and} PW-4 stated that they^{requestedthe appellant/accusednot to harass the} deceased.

¶55

Placing reliance on the^{judgrnentsof the Hon'bleSuprerne Court in} the case of Durga Prasad^{v. Stateof Matlhya Pradesh and in the caseof} Chahi Karmukar v.^{The State of ll'est Bengal,since the allegationof} harassment in the present^{case is vague and ornnibus and nothing specificis} stated against either^{husbandor the accusedNo.3who is the younger} brother of the husband,^{it creates any amountof doubt.AccusedNo.3was} studying at that relevant time.

¶56

,l

¶57

In view of the^{general allegationsrnade by PW-l,PW-3 and PW-4,} the conviction cannot^{be maintained insofar as accusedNo.3 is concerned.}

¶58

Though the alteged^{harasstnentpursuant to the dernandof} Rs.3,00,000i- was tnade, however,^{nothing specific is stated by any of the} witnesses as already discussed^above.

¶59

The fact remains that^{there was a dernantl and thedeceasedwas left} at her parents' house.^{Accordingly, since ttrc prosecution has failed to}

¶60

r1

¶61

7

¶62

prove that thcrc was ill-treatrnent pursuant to the allegr:d dernarrd, ollence under Section 304-8 ol IPC is not rnade out. Howevt:r. accusi:d No. I is liable under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶63

fhough no separate charge was frarned under Se<:tion 498 A ol'IpC, however the ch;lrge fl-arned under Section 304-8 of lpC reflects rhat there was harassment 1bl dowry and there was a demand lor additio ral dorvry and unable to bear that alleged harassment, the de.ceasecl L:ornrnitteci suicide. The saitl charge framed under Section i04-B of IpC reflectq cruelty as such no separate charge under Section 498.4 needs to lre frarned. Accused No.l is convicted under Section 498-4 of IpC- and ser.Ltenced to undergo irnprisonment fbr a period ofone year. Since accused lrJo.l is on bail, he shall be surnrnoned by the trial court and on such sul.r)nder; the trial courl shall send hirn to prison to serve out the re,leini,g plrr of the sentence

¶64

2I ln vieu,ot the above, the instant appeal stands par.tl1, allorve,:l.

¶65

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pend ing shall stancl

¶66

dismissed

¶67

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR jl //TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69

To,

¶70

1 The lAdditional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar 2 The lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar a The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal

¶71