JUDGMENT
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The accused-appellant herein along with his parents were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, in S. G. No. 83 of 1990. During the pendency of the trial accused No. 2 died. On evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no offence was disclosed against accused No. 3 and therefore she was acquitted Accused No. 1 was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304-B and therefore the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused and he was sentenced to suffer R.1 for seven years. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order and sentence, the accused-appellant has filed this appeal on various grounds as stated in the appeal memo.
2. The charge against the accused was that on 14-4-1990 at about 12.00 noon at Kottal village one Smt. Bandari Balamani daughter of B. Babaiah died unnatural death by falling into a well and soon before her death the accused-appellant had subjected her to cruelty by demanding dowry, that is, one tola of gold and a cash of Rs. 2,000/- and therefore as per the version of the prosecution the accused is liable to be punished for an offence under Section 304-B.
3. In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses including the Police Officers and the medical officers. They produced 5 documents on record marked as Exs. P. 1 To P. 5.
4. In order to prove the fact that the deceased died unnatural death the prosecution lead the evidence of P. W. 9 who was inquest Panch The Panchanama was conducted by P. W. 11 the Investigating Officer The inquest report is produced on record as Exs. P. 2.
5. After the dead body was removed from the well the Investigating Officer P. W. 11 sent it to P. W. 10 the Doctor conducted the autopsy on the dead body and issued post-mortem certificate which is produced on record as Ex. P. 4. Looking to the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 10 and post-mortem report there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the deceased died because of drowning into the well.
6. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the evidence of P. W. 9 shows that there is no parapet wall to the well and it is open. If any person moves without seeing the well he can fall into the well accidentally. With this admission of the said witness, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that was not a case of suicide or unnatural death but it was purely accidental However. I am not prepared to accept the submission of the learned Counsel because there are other witnesses whose evidence shows that the deceased died because of jumping into the well with an intention to commit suicide.
7. One more contention was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant herein that the prosecution was not able to establish that the accused-appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. It was contended by the learned Counsel that if a woman dies within seven years of her marriage and if it is an unnatural death then it must be presumed that it is a dowry death provided the prosecution is able to establish that she was subjected to cruelty. The learned Counsel further pointed out to the evidence as lead by the prosecution that every witness who was examined by the prosecution gives a different version P. W. 1 who happens to be the Sarpanch of the village has come with a theory that the deceased was married to A-1 two years prior to the incident. The father of the deceased, P. W. 2 tells in his evidence that the deceased was married to A-15 or 6 years prior to the incident. The mother of the deceased states that the deceased was married 13 years prior to the incident With this evidence, no inference can be drawn that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage and it is an unnatural death. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed in establishing the charge under Section 394-B of the IPC
8. F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 came to be lodged by P. W. I. happens to be the Sarpanch of the village. He returned home at about 8:00 p.m. on 14-4-1990 and he was informed by the other village servant that the deceased had died because of falling into the well. Immediately, be rushed to the house of P. W. 2 and enquired regarding the death of the deceased. On being satisfied that the deceased died because of jumping into the well, he lodged the complaint and thus the police machinery was set in motion.
9. P. W. 1 states in his evidence that he is aware of the accused harassing the deceased and demanding one tola of gold and cash of Rs. 2.000/-. The father of the deceased stated in his evidence that at the time of the marriage of the deceased with A-1, he gifted certain utensils and that he also made an announcement that he would give half tola of gold after the marriage, but he could not keep up his promise because of financial difficulties, A-1 was constantly demanding half tola of gold and an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/-. On two or three occasions A-1 had driven the deceased out of his house and on every occasion the deceased was required to stay in his house. P. W. 2 further states in his evidence that he had held a Panchayat and tried to pacify the accused that he would give the gold as early as possible, but the accused was very much in a hurry to get the gold from P. W. 2 and therefore atleast on three occasions the deceased was driven out of the house.
10. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the evidence of P. W. 2 that there is no custom of dowry in the community to which the prosecution witnesses belong. There may not be a custom of giving or taking dowry in a particular community. But from the evidence of P. W. 2 it stands duly established that A- 1 was harassing the deceased on account of half tola of gold and cash of Rs. 2000/- P. W. 3 happens to be the mother of the deceased and she has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 2 as far as the demand by the accused regarding half tola of gold and cash of Rs. 2.000/- is concerned. She has also stated that her daughter was driven out of the house on three occasions. P. Ws. 4 and 6 who happen to be the younger brothers of P. W. 3 also corroborate the evidence of P. W. 3 with regard to the harassment.
11. Looking to the entire evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B. On the given set of facts and evidence, I hold that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and therefore I convict him for the aforesaid charge and acquit him for the offence punishable under Section 304-B.
12. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused had been in jail right from the date of conviction and he has also suffered imprisonment during investigation. Considering the period for which the accused had been in jail, which comes to over two years, I hold that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would suffice the purpose. Hence, I pass the following order.
13. The appeal is partly allowed. The accused-appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other offence.