TUMMALA VENKATESWAR RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as "IPC"] for 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for causing dowry death of the deceased Neelima. His mother, his sister and her husband were acquitted of the same charge.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant was married to Neelima on 12.02.2003. She went to cohabit with him after five months in July 2003 but returned within four days informing her family that the accused used to harass her physically and mentally both for want of Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry. Gandham Anuradha @ Chinni - A3 and Thummala Sreelakshmi A-4, the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant, took her back for Varalakshmi Viratam. She was again harassed for the same demand. So, the father PW1, brought her back to his house. At home, the deceased Neelima, expressed her intention to commit suicide. The father invited the appellant to his house for Diwali on 23.10.2003 but he refused to come. At about 7.30 p.m. when the family was celebrating the festival, Neelima consumed pesticide in her bed room. She was found there on the bed with the pesticide tin next to her. The family shifted her to Elect Critical Care Hospital but she died. The father reported the matter to the police, who registered a First Information Report. The next day, the police recovered the pesticide tin, the bed sheet and the towel. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) examined the father, who gave his statement. Hence, the prosecution.

(3.) We have heard the parties and examined the record. Shri Nagendara Rai, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the other accused, namely, the mother - Thummala Satyavani A2; the sister - Gandham Anuradha - A3; and Thummala Sreelakshmi A-4 (husband of A3) having been acquitted on the same evidence, the accused is also entitled for such an acquittal, in view of the fact no specific allegation that the appellant demanded dowry has been made, such allegation having been made in general in respect of all the accused. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the prosecution, there is no merit in this submission since there is evidence that not only the appellant made a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with other accused but that the accused specifically and individually made demand for dowry. In his deposition, PW-1 father of the deceased, stated that the deceased had informed that the appellant used to beat her for dowry when the deceased first went to cohabit with him after five months. Even after her return to matrimonial house for the second time, he deposed that on 23.10.2003 when he went to invite the appellant and his daughter for Diwali Festival all the accused asked him to take away his daughter as he did not pay the dowry and they wanted to perform marriage of the appellant with another lady. The father (PW1) has specifically stated that the appellant himself did not accept the invitation but asked him to send his daughter with cash. It is soon thereafter that the deceased expressed her intention to commit suicide since she came back alone narrating the harassment made by the accused. There is similar evidence in the depositions of PW-3 K. Sudha Rani, the sister of the deceased, who has deposed that the deceased expressed her grief that her husband did not come for Diwali for want of Rs.2,00,000/-. Whereupon, the deceased wept and expressed her intention not to live. PW-5 Kothapalli Satyanarayana the maternal uncle of the deceased, has also deposed that Neelima informed that A1-appellant continued to demand dowry. These specific allegations in respect of the demand by the appellant are apart from the various statements of the witnesses that the accused, which term include the appellant, harassed her even when she went to cohabit for the first time. The appellant entrusted her the work of servant maid and he used to beat her for dowry. In fact, the accused informed the family of the deceased their intention to marry another lady for higher dowry. In view of the beating and humiliation meted out by the appellant we are satisfied that the deceased was harassed and treated with cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry.