JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-10-1996 rendered in SC No. 19 of 1996 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentencing A1, A3 and A4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and sentencing A2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by each of the accused and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. PW1-Thota Lakshman Rao -married his daughter deceased-Salla Vijaya to A1 four months prior to the incident in this case. A2-Ravuri Savithri is said to be the grand-mother of Al by some relationship. A3-Kola Koti is the paternal uncle of Al. A4-Kola Laxmi is the wife of A3. According to the version of the prosecution, PW1 is a man of modest resources doing his small business of selling of bangles. At the time of marriage of the deceased PW 1 agreed to give dowry of Rs.6,000/- besides presenting a wrist watch to the 1st accused and he also promised to present gold ‘Kanparusulu’ weighing half-a-tola to the deceased. PW1 also promised to give house-hold articles worth Rs.5,000/-to A1 and A2. At the time of marriage, PW1 also agreed to present upto one tola of gold. After marriage, the said Vijaya and the accused have been living in Bandamvari street, Parvathipuram in the house belonging to A2. According to PW1, he also promised to present house-hold articles worth Rs.5,000/ – to the couple. Out of these agreed articles, except one fourth tola of ear tops, other items were given by PW1. According to PW1, after marriage he sent the house-hold articles (sare saman) to the house of A2, but they were sent back to PW1. Thereafter, the deceased Vijaya and A1 went to the house of PW 1. His daughter told him that as the ear tops were of lesser weight and house-hold articles were not of required quantity they were resented by family members of her in-laws and were sent back and that she was also sent back with those samans. Leaving the deceased, Al left PW1’s house who remained there for about 15 or 16 days. Thereafter, his elder son-in-law, Pola Laxmi and his elder daughter Pola Ramanamma went to PW1’s house and they took the deceased Vijaya to Parvathipuram and left her with A1 and A2. Thereafter PW1 went to the house of Al and A2 to bring his daughter for “Ashadamasam” and brought her. After one week, A1 stating that there was no one to look after the house when he went out for work asked the deceased to be sent back. A1 took the deceased with him. PW1 gave him Rs.200/- though he (A1) asked Rs.400/-. Four days thereafter, he came to know that his daughter was ill-treated and was beaten for not bringing house-hold articles and ear tops of more weight. Unable to bear the mental and physical torture, the deceased went back to his house and asked the promised gold articles and he asked for some more time to arrange them and thereafter the deceased went back to her husband’s house and lived there in spite of her ill-treatment. Thereafter, he went for his business to Parvathipuram and visited his daughter at their (accused) house. This was a day prior to the death of the deceased. During his visit, the deceased wept before him and told him that she was being harassed by the accused. PW1 told A2, A3 and A4 that within one week he would give the gold ear tops of half a tula.
3. On the next day, he got down at Peda Merangi village in connection with his business. There, he learnt that a girl being the daughter of a bangle dealer died at Parvathipuram. On suspicion he went back to his daughter’s house (deceased) by then some of his relatives had also arrived there and all the accused were also present. PW2-Doddala Adilakshmi and PW3-Rokkam Satyanarayana were also present there. There he saw in the varandah of the house, his daughter lying with face to the ground with bum injuries and blackened body. PW4-Salla Appa Rao who was also present there scribed the report as narrated by PW1 and gave the same (Ex.Pl) at the police station, on which a case in Crime No.90 of 1995 on the file of Parvathipuram P.S. was registered and Ex.P5-FIR was issued. Later, police came to the house of the accused. The Mandal Revenue Officer (PW9) conducted the inquest during which he was present. PW12-Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence and conducted panchnama in the presence of mediators i.e., PW8 and another and they found the dead body in the kitchen in a burnt condition, photographer was called and photographs Exs.P6 to P13 were taken and negatives of which are Exs.P14 to P21 and he prepared a rough
sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P22. PW12 the Sub-Inspector also seized MOs.1 to 6 i.e., Plastic tin, alluminium vessel, Match box, Bangle pieces, Langa, and Jacket under Ex.P2-Panchanama. MO2 was smelling of kerosene. There was kerosene in the tin MO1 also. The Mandal Revenue Officer (PW9) conducted inquest under Ex.P3. He examined the witnesses during the inquest. The Mandal Revenue Officer sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Parvathipuram for holding autopsy. PW12 arrested the accused near Agraharam street at Parvathipuram at 11 am. on 8-8-1995. Thereafter, PW13-Sub-Divisional Police Officer took up investigation and filed charge-sheet after completing the investigation.
4. The prosecution seeks to rely on the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused:
(i) The evidence of PW1-the father of the deceased as to circumstances relating to payment of dowry and articles by him and of the harassment, the deceased was ‘subjected to by the accused;
(ii) The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 to corroborate as to the cruelty and
harassment meted out to the deceased;
(iii) The medical evidence given by the Doctor-PW10 that the deceased died due to 100% burn injuries;
(iv) The circumstantial evidence given by PW12-the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Panch evidence (PW 8) as to the articles seized from the scene of offence which included one container with kerosene and another container smelling kerosene.
On this material on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them as stated supra.
5. The question for consideration is
whether the prosecution has succeeded in
bringing home the charge against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt?
6. PW1 in his evidence specifically stated that some time after marriage he sent some house-hold articles as promised at the time of marriage to the house of A1 who was living with A2 but those articles were sent back along with the deceased and accused No.1 accompanied her. According to PW1, the deceased told him that as he presented ear tops of a very small weight and the house-hold articles were not sufficient enough, her family members resented and she was sent back with those samans. The evidence of PW6, who runs a tea stall near the house of the accused 1 and 2 which was separated by a road shows that Accused No.2 used to visit his shop now and then and she used to take tea or tiffin from his shop to her house. He corroborates PW1 that after the marriage of the deceased with Al, she brought to the family of the accused ‘sare saman’ (dowry articles) but the same were refused by the accused. According to him, Accused No.2 expressed dis-satisfaction over those articles and sent them back. This evidence also finds corroboration from PW4 who is no other than the brother of Accused No.1’s father. In his evidence, he stated that he came to know that sare saman sent by PW1 were returned and then he called accused No. 1 and advised him not to resort to coercion as he would land in trouble and also advised him not to demand further dowry. PW4 states that he even advised PW1 not to send his daughter as the attitude of the accused was not changed. However PW1 did not heed his advice.
7. Further it is the version of PW1 that after the episode of returning of sare saman (dowry articles), he came to know that the accused ill-treated his daughter and beat her for not bringing adequate household articles and ear tops of more weight. According to PW1 unable to bear this harassment the deceased again went to him
and requested him to give them the promised gold and house-hold articles. He asked her to wait for 10 days. Thereupon, the deceased went back to Al and A2.
8. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that in connection with his business he went to Parvathipuram and he visited the deceased. According to him, during that visit his daughter wept and told him that she was being harassed by the accused. He told A2, A3 and A4 that within one week he will give the gold ear tops of half a tula. . PW2-D.Audilakshmi who is a resident of Addapusala in her evidence stated that one rickshaw-wala of Parvathipuram told her that the deceased was ill-treated by the accused. This is hear-say evidence. However, it is in her evidence that after knowing that the deceased was sent back to her parents house, he went to PWl’s house to console the deceased who told her about the ill-treatment meted out to her (deceased) by the accused. PW3-& Satya Narayana in his evidence stated that on one occasion Al came along with his wife to the house of PW1 and that he went to the house of PW1 and met them. There he came to know that Accused No.l was presented l/4th tula of gold article instead of half-a-tuta as promised and that articles gifted to her also were not in required quantity. He however explained to accused No.l about the capacity of PW1 to give the required articles as demanded by Al. He advised Accused No.l not to demand anything further. According to him, Accused No.l told him that he was dependent on accused No.2 and that unless accused No.2 was convinced he could not do anything. PW5-Bhogi Ravi in his evidence states that he was residing at Bandamvari street in Parvathipuram just 30 to 40 yards from the house of Accused Nos.l and 2. He states that accused No.2 was responsible for differences between Al and the deceased and that Al and A2 were raising disputes about dowry articles.
9. It may be mentioned that originally the accused was also charged for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and alternatively for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC but they have been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
10. I have carefully examined the evidence of PWs.l to 6. As far as their evidence, in respect of the matters summarised above is concerned, nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to dis-believe their version. At any rate, PW1 has given positive evidence which stands corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. This evidence shows that within a few days of marriage Al and A2 returned back the dowry articles sent by PW1 on the ground that they were deficient and inadequate with reference to the promise made by PW1. Not only the articles were sent back but also the deceased was sent back with’those articles and it was only on a further assurance from PW1 that the deceased was subsequently taken back to the house of Accused Nos.l and 2. PWl’s evidence further discloses that the deceased herself on two occasions complained to him that the accused ill-treated her. In the case of Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, , it was held that under the facts and circumstances of the case where the father and brother of the deceased were driven back from the house of the accused complaining that dowry has not been given, that amounts to cruel treatment to the deceased. In this case, the dowry articles sent by PW1 were returned and the deceased herself was driven out of the house of accused No. 1 and accused No.l took her and left her in the house of PW1. Under the circumstances, this satisfies the requirement of cruel treatment against the deceased. This is further strengthened by the evidence of PW1 that the deceased herself on more than one occasion complained of her ill-treatment by the accused.
11. For meeting the requirements of definition of dowry death under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish (i) that the death of woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or in any
manner otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) that the deceased was married to the accused within seven years prior to her death; and (iii) that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for or inconnection with any demand for dowry. As seen above there could be no dispute and there is ample evidence that the deceased was married about four months prior to her death. This is in the evidence of PW1 and all other witnesses. The evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4, Sub-Inspector of Police-PW12 and the evidence of the Doctor-PW10 shows beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased died due to 100% burns. The evidence of PW1 and other witnesses as discussed above would show that immediately prior to her death the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment.
12. The deceased was living with her husband-Al in the house of A2. There is sufficient evidence to show that Al and A2 subjected the deceased to cruel treatment. But, in regard to A3 and A4 it is in the evidence that they were residing at a different place, though the p’rosecution witnesses including PW6 states that A3 and A4 were visiting the house of Al and A2 now and then. They were also said to be present at the time of the death of the deceased, but there is no specific evidence that A3 and A4 illtreated the deceased. Even according to PW1, the deceased though told him about the ill-treatment, does not seem to have ascribed any specific role to accused Nos.3 and 4. As far as A1 and A2 are concerned, as the deceased was living in their house and as stated by PW1, accused No. 1 himself told that he was under the influence of A2, and that the demand of dowry could not be avoided unless A2 was satisfied, A2 must be held to have ill-treated the deceased cruelly alongwith A1. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is confirmed, but for the above reasons A3 and A4 are entitled to benefit of doubt as there is no specific evidence against them.
13. In the result, A3 and A4 are held not guilty and acquitted of charge under Section 304-B of IPC. The sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed against them are set-aside. The bail bonds of A3 and A4 shall stand discharged. However, the conviction of Accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed against them by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed.
14. The appeal is ordered accordingly.