JUDGMENT
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The appellants herein were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and also under Section 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990. On hearing the prosecution and the defence of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges levelled against them and, therefore, both the accused were convicted of an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. Further the accused were also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them were sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer S.I. for two months under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were made to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal on various grounds as stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal.
3. The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows : The deceased, Smt. J. Suvarna, was married to A-2 somewhere in the year 1984. P.W. 1 happened to be the father of the deceased. A-1 is the mother of A-2. At the time of marriage as per the version of prosecution, P.W. 1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/-by way of dowry. Out of the said amount, Rs. 8,000/- were paid to A-2 in cash and for the remaining amount, the deceased was given 12 tolas of gold.
4. It is further alleged by the prosecution that for 1 1/2 years, A-2 and the deceased stayed very happily and they were blessed with a son. But unfortunately after the birth of their son, A-2 lost his job where he was working as a clerk in the Chit Fund Company which went for liquidation.
5. It is further alleged by the prosecution that taking advantage of unemployment of A-2, A-l started ill-treating the deceased saying that A-2 was unemployed and she had to maintain both A-2 and their son, as A-2 had no independent source of income.
6. Some days continued, A-2 had no job. He tried for a job but was unsuccessful. Ultimately A-2 asked the deceased to get Rs. 22,000/- from her parents as he was promised some job by paying bribe of Rs. 30,000/- in Charminar Cigarette Factory. P.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e., the father and elder brother of the deceased were not able to give the said amount to the deceased for being handed over to A-2. However, they suggested that if A-2 is in need of some job, he should work in their transport business as a Clerk of monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. According to the offer given by P.Ws. 1 and 2, A-2 started working in the transport company of P.W. 1. After a few months, the deceased told P.W. 1 that the salary given to A-2 was insufficient and therefore A-2 demanded salary of Rs. 1,000/-. However, the proposal given by the accused appears to have been rejected by P.W. 1.
7. It is further stated by the prosecution that on the intervening night of 23/24.4.1987 at about 2.00 p.m. (sic. a.m.) the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and set fire on her. On the next day morning A-2 went to the Police Station at about 8.00 a.m. and filed a report regarding the death of his wife, which is now produced on record as Ex. P-5. The said information was recorded by the Inspector of Police, P.W. 13 and he registered Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. as Crime No. 45 of 1987.
8. After getting the report Ex. P-5, P.W. 13 visited the scene of offence and held inquest panchanama on the dead body. The said panchanama is produced on record as Ex. P-2. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy. The autopsy was carried out by P.W. 10. The autopsy report is produced on record as Ex. P-3.
9. It is the further case of prosecution that on 26.4.1987 P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and gave a report regarding the murder of his daughter, which is produced on record as Ex. P-1. He has taken some witnesses along with him. P.W. 13 recorded the statement of the complainant i.e., P.W. 1. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed as aforesaid. The accused were prosecuted and convicted as stated earlier.
10. The defence of the accused appears to be a total denial and it is also suggested by the accused that A-2 was working with the parents of the deceased. The very fact was not liked by the deceased as she felt humiliation and she also felt that they have been lowered down in the eyes of relations and friends and she was insisting upon her husband i.e., A-2 to take up some employment which A-2 was not able to secure and, therefore, she committed suicide on the night of 23/24.4.1987.
11. In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution led the evidence in all 14 witnesses. The prosecution filed certain documents, which have been marked as Exs. P-l to P-9. The defence also filed certain documents, which have been marked as Exs. D-1 to D-10.
12. The learned Counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing on behalf of the accused firstly drew my attention to the documents which have been marked on behalf of the defence. It was also brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants that immediately after the death of the deceased, a report regarding the death was given by the husband of the deceased and thereafter the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the father, brother and also the elder sister of the deceased. This was earlier version immediately after the death of the deceased. Naturally all of them have stated that the deceased died because of self-immolation. There was no dowry demand. The deceased was never ill-treated by the accused and they had no complaint of any sort against the accused.
13. Ex. D-4 is a proof contradiction produced on record which reads as under:
“I do not have suspicion on him or his mother Yadamma or any other person. There is no foul play or suspicion in her death. My daughter Suvarna died of self-immolation last night due to the dispute that her husband should not work under us and there is no other reason such as harassment from husband or in-laws. There was also no demand of dowry or cash from her husband or in-laws. She was not ill-treated by any of her family members so far.
Exs. D-5 and D-6 are the statements of P.W. 2 which reads as under:
“Ex. D-5 : Since her marriage, there were no complaints from her of cruelty or ill-treatment from her husband or in-laws. There were also no demands of dowry etc., from them.”
Ex. D-6: My sister Suvarna was objecting her husband not to work with us and seek some other employment as she was feeling below her prestige and unable to face Society”.
Exs. D-8 to D-10 are the statements of P.W. 8, which reads as under :
“Ex. D-8: Sister was not liking him working under my parents and asking him to take up some other employment as it was below her prestige if he continues to work under our parents. She also complained to me that she was losing her self-esteem in the eyes of society as her husband is working under her parents.
Ex. D-9 : I do not have suspicion on him or his parents. There were no demands of dowry etc.
Ex. D-10: There were also no complaints from her of cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws.”
14. It can be seen from the abovesaid statements that at an earlier opportunity nobody spoke about the wrong against A-2. It is after three days, P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report Ex. P-1 staring that the deceased was murdered because she could not fulfil the dowry demand made by A-1 and A-2 and he had also taken some of the witnesses along with him to the said Police Station and the Investigating Officer. P.W. 13 had recorded the statements of those witnesses and the charge-sheet in question came to be filed. With this background on record, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that P.W. 1 has connected the accused with the crime is an after-thought action for the reasons known to him and, therefore, no reliance can be kept upon the evidence of P.W. 1 which was subsequently concocted.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellants also drew my attention to the inquest panchanama which was done immediately after the report of the death of the deceased was filed by A-2. At the relevant time, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 were examined by P.W. 13 in which they have stated that they had no complaint of any sort against A-1 and A-2 and, therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the story put forward by P.W. 1 subsequently is definitely an afterthought and there was no reason for the Investigating Officer to record false statement of P.W. 1 and others to favour the accused. Therefore, there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 13.
16. As far as the death of the deceased is concerned, there is no doubt that the deceased died because of the burn injuries sustained by her. The post-mortern examination over the dead body was carried out by P.W. 10. The post-mortem report is produced on record as Ex. P-3.
17. Considering the earlier versions given by P.Ws. 1, 2, and 8 i.e., the father, brother and sister of the deceased, I have no hesitation in holding that A-1 and A-2 were not responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The deceased died because she could not mentally bear self-humiliation which she felt as her husband was working with her parents and brothers. Probably this subordination was beyond her tolerance and, therefore, she was constrained to commit suicide for which A-l and A-2 are not responsible.
18. Under these circumstances, the appeal has to be allowed by acquitting the accused of all the charges levelled against them.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990 on his file. The accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds executed by the accused stand cancelled. The fine, if any paid, be refunded to the accused.