(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to memorandum of appeal against the order passed in S.C.No.226 of 2019, dt.18-02-2020, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajamahendravaram, sentencing the appellant herein to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months for the offence under section 304-B, IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for 5(five) years and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3months, for the offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo S.I. for 2 months, for the offence under section 4 of D.P.Act,

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant the bail, by suspending the operation of the judgment in S.C.No.226/2019, dt.18-02-2020, on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the CRL.A., and pass)

1. Heard Sri D.Kasim Saheb, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. The appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 18.02.2020 in Sessions Case No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the D.P.Act‟). The appellant was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC: the appellant is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Section 3 of “the D.P.Act‟: the appellant was also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the offence under Section 4 of “the D.P.Act‟.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the appellant and Manikyamba @ Devi (hereinafter referred to as “deceased‟) the second daughter of P.W.1 was performed on 17.05.2017 at Vella Village. The parents of the deceased presented Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), gold and a house portion etc., towards dowry to the appellant. The deceased joined the appellant at Vella Village. They lead marital life for some time at Vella Village. Later, the appellant started harassing the deceased demanding additional dowry. The appellant used to beat the deceased to bring additional dowry. It was informed to the parents of the deceased. The matter was placed before the elders. The elders advised the deceased and the appellant to start a family at Ramachandrapuram. Therefore, the appellant and deceased started living at Ramachandrapuram in the house of P.W.3. The appellant did not change his conduct. The appellant continued harassment demanding for additional dowry and sell away the house gifted to the deceased.  Soon after, one day P.W.1 was informed by brother of the appellant that deceased was admitted in the hospital. Immediately, P.W.1, P.W.2 i.e., sister of the deceased went to the hospital at Ramachandrapuram. They were informed that the deceased was brought dead.

4. Therefore, P.W.1 presented a report-Ex.P.1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram on 29.04.2018. It was registered as Ex.P.10-FIR. P.W.15-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramachandrapuram, conducted investigation into the case. P.W.15 visited the scene of offence i.e., house of the appellant and deceased at Ramachandrapuram, belonging to P.W.3.  He observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.12 and another mediator, seized M.O.1-Chunni, M.O.2-Voter Identity Card, Aadhar Card and Wedding Card under cover of Ex.P.5-observation report. He also prepared Ex.P.11-Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence. P.W.13-Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram, conducted inquest proceedings vide Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.12 and another. M.O.3 –Wearing apparel of the deceased was seized during the inquest proceedings.

5. On 30.04.2018, P.W.15 visited Village of the P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and others and recorded their statements. On 01.05.2018, he again visited scene of offence examined the landlord of the house of P.W.3. P.W.4 and 9 recorded their statements. He also examined P.W.10 and others of Uppumilli Village. On 02.05.2018 he visited Vella Village examined P.Ws.5, 7, 8 and others and recorded their statements. On 03.05.2018 he again visited Uppumilli Village and examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements. On 09.05.2018, he visited Vella Village and examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements and he also recorded the statement of Photographer-P.W.11, who two photographs for the scene of offence and the body of the deceased.

6. During the course of investigation, P.W.15 received Preliminary Post Mortem Report-Ex.P.6 and basing on the same he made a requisition to Pathology Department and also to RFSL vide Exs.P.12 and 13. On 21.05.2018, the appellant surrendered before P.W.15. He was produced before the Magistrate for Judicial Custody. Later, P.W.15 presented a requisition before the Magistrate for recording statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and others vide Exs.P.14 and 15. On 29.09.2018 he received final opinion of the Medical Officer-P.W.14. In Ex.P.9 final opinion, the Doctor opined that death of the deceased was due to strangulation of neck associated with head injury and death is a homicidal death. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

7. Basing on the material, the learned Sessions Judge charged the appellant for the offence under Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:

8. The prosecution in order to prove the charges, examined 15 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 15 respectively. During their evidence, marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17, apart from material objects referred above.

9. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., regarding incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence for the prosecution. The appellant denied the case of the prosecution as false. No evidence was adduced for the defence.

FINDING OF THE SESSIONS COURT:

10. The learned Sessions Judge considering the above evidence on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal came to be preferred.

11. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly, acquitted the appellant for that charge.  The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that no appeal was preferred by the State challenging the order of acquittal of the Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

12. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the prosecution in order to prove the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, would establish that soon before death of the woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with demand of dowry. In the case on hand, reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and other witnesses produced by the prosecution will not lead the Court for coming to a conclusion that the deceased in the case was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.

13. P.W.1 is father of the deceased. P.W.2 is sister of the deceased. Naturally they are interested in the result of the case. Therefore, their evidence before the Court would require some corroboration. The evidence of the other witnesses in the case is not corroborating their testimony regarding demand for dowry as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with demand for dowry. The learned Session Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Trial Court that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not sustainable.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE:

14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of father and sister of the deceased would show that they presented dowry at the time of marriage, and it was accepted by the appellant. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would also establish that subsequent to marriage, the appellant harassed the deceased in connection with demand for additional dowry. Therefore, the dispute was placed before the elders of the Village. They advised the appellant and the deceased to set up family at another village i.e., Ramachandrapuram. Accordingly, the appellant and the deceased joined in the house of P.W.3. There also, he continued the harassment and soon after the same, the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. Her death is within seven years of the marriage.

15. The prosecution to prove the fact that the appellant subjected the deceased to harassment in connection with demand for additional dowry not only examined the parents and sister of the deceased, but also examined the owner of the house at  Ramachandrapuram,  neighbours  of  the  house  at Ramachandrapuram and also examined the mediators. Their evidence would show that mediation was held by the elders in connection with harassment made by the appellant in connection with demand for additional dowry. The evidence of landlord of the house at Ramachandrapuram and neighbours of the house at Ramachandrapuram would show that the appellant subjected the deceased to harassment in connection with the demand for additional dowry.

16. Therefore, the evidence of independent witnesses produced by the prosecution is corroborating the evidence of father and sister regarding the fact that the appellant subjected the deceased to harassment in connection with the demand for additional dowry soon before the death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the light of evidence on record, Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would come into operation. The appellant in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses did not elicit any material to rebut the presumption. He also did not place any independent evidence before the Court rebutting the presumption. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟, and convicted him accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

18. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is as under:

               “Whether there are grounds to interfere with judgment of the Sessions Court”?

19. POINT: The appellant was charged for the offence under Sections 304-B, 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟ by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant was found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, as discussed above. No appeal was filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal on the charge under Section 302 of IPC.

20. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟.

21. The prosecution to prove the offence under Section 304-B of IPC shall establish that a married women died in unnatural circumstances, within seven years from her marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband soon before her death.

22. In the case on hand, the appellant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of the marriage. The evidence on record, i.e., evidence of Medical Officer-P.W.14 and Post Mortem Certificate issued by the Medical Officer mentioned above would show that a team of Doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 29.04.2019 and they found that the death of the deceased is on account of suspicious death, due to strangulation of neck associated with head injury, not under the influence of poisonous substance. As per Ex.P.9 and the evidence of P.W.14, the death is a homicidal death. Therefore, the medical evidence on record would establish that death was occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. Admittedly, it was occurred within seven years of the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. The evidence on record i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 & 9 would establish that the appellant and the deceased are living in the same house, soon before the death of the deceased.

ANALYSIS:

23. Now, the question is whether prosecution evidence would establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry or additional dowry soon before her death by the appellant?

24. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. Perusal of their evidence would show that they gave dowry to the appellant at the time of marriage as stated in their evidence and it was accepted by the appellant. Their evidence would also show that subsequent to the marriage, the appellant and the deceased started living at Vella Village initially. During that time, the appellant started harassing the deceased with a demand for additional dowry. It was informed to the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the matter was placed before the elders to resolve the issue between the appellant and the deceased. The elders advised the appellant and the deceased to shift their matrimonial home to another Village i.e., Ramachandrapuram. Therefore, the appellant and deceased shifted to Ramachandrapuram Village and started residing in a rented house. P.W.3 is the landlord of the house. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant did not stop the harassment even at Ramachandrapuram and subjected the deceased to harassment demanding the additional dowry. Soon after, the deceased died under unnatural circumstances in the house.

25. The prosecution in order to establish the above facts, has examined the landlord of the house as P.W.3. P.W.3 evidence would establish that the appellant used to physically beat the deceased demanding for additional dowry even at Ramachandrapuram. The prosecution also examined P.W.9, who is a neighbour at Ramachandrapuram. P.W.9 evidence would corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 regarding harassment made by the appellant in connection with the demand for additional dowry. Their evidence would also establish that the appellant was beating the deceased demanding for additional dowry.

26. The prosecution was examined some mediators as P.Ws.5, 6 and 7. Their evidence would establish that on the request of parents of the deceased as well as accused, they held a mediation to settle the dispute between the appellant and the deceased in connection with the demand for additional dowry and they advised the appellant and the deceased to shift their family to Ramachandrapuram, so that, the issue will be pacified. P.W.8 is neighbor to the appellant and deceased at Vella Village. He deposed about the harassment made by the appellant at Vella Village before shifting to Ramachandrapuram. His evidence would establish that the appellant harassed the deceased demand for additional dowry.

27. Perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses does not disclose any material to say that the credit of the said witnesses had been impeached, in the manner laid down under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is nothing on record to say that they are unworthy of credit, or bribed, or received any other corrupt inducement to give evidence in favour of P.W.1 or against the appellant. No former statements inconsistence with any part of the evidence of the above witnesses were proved during the trial of the case to say that the witnesses are unworthy of credit. Therefore, their testimony was unimpeached. Hence, the unimpeached evidence of the above witnesses would lead the Court for coming to a conclusion, without any hesitation to say that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with demand for additional dowry soon before her death.

28. The evidence on record would establish that the deceased died other than under normal circumstances soon after shifting the family to Ramachandrapuram. Therefore, it would show that the interval between harassment and the death is very proximate, and there is a live link between the effect of harassment based on dowry demand and the death. Therefore, the prosecution proved the necessary facts to raise presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the deceased has been subjected to harassment in connection with demand for additional dowry soon before her death.

29. Already as discussed supra, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to rebut the presumption. No independent evidence was placed on record by the appellant to rebut the presumption. In those circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution successfully bring home the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟. CONCLUSION:

30. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Further, this Court also do not find any grounds to interfere with quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of “the D.P.Act‟. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

RESULT:

31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. This judgment be certified to the lower Court, as per section 405 of Cr.P.C.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.