KONETI VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order of conviction dated 21-4-1997 passed by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C. No. 126/1994.

(2.) The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC The Court below on evidence found A-1, A-3 and A-4 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offence only under Section 304-B I.P.C. and passed no separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., as the Court below felt that substantive sentence is imposed for the major offence under Section 304-B, separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A is not necessary. As A-2 was not found guilty for the said charges, he was acquitted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, A-1, A-3 and A-4 filed this criminal appeal.

(3.) The story of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-The deceased Koneti Malleswari is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W. 3 is her younger brother. A-1 is her husband. A-2 is the younger brother of A-1. A-3 and A-4 are the parents of A-1 and A-2. P.Ws.1 and 2 performed the marriage of the deceased with A-1 on 22-8- 1992 at K. Kotapadu. As agreed P.Ws. 1 and 2 paid an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 to A-1 and presented him 1/4th tula of gold ring. After the marriage, the deceased was sent to the house of the accused at Chodavaram. A-1 and the deceased lead married life peacefully for a month. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 5,000.00, a T. V. and a radio. The deceased informed the same to P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1 gave a sewing machine to the deceased and expressed his inability before A-1 to give additional dowry of Rs.5,000.00, T. V. and Radio. Having been not satisfied with the sewing machine, A-1 and the remaining accused ill-treated and assaulted the deceased. P.W.1 tried to convince A-1 that he was not able to meet the demands due to his weak financial position and promised to fulfill the demands after some time. As the accused did not stop the ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and sent her away to her parents' house, P.W.1 requested P.W.7 and other marriage elders to convince the accused not to press for their demands and further requested them to advise the accused to treat the deceased properly. Thereafter P.W. 1 sent the deceased to her in-laws' house along with his eldest son, instructing him to tell the in-laws' of the deceased that P.W. 1 would meet their demands within a short time. Subsequently P.W. 7 and other marriage elders came to the house of P.W. 1 and stated that the accused were not paying any heed to their words. On 1-2-1994 the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 at K. Kotapadu to see her sick mother P.W. 2. At that time, the deceased informed P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the harassment and ill-treatment and demand for additional dowry and other articles. On 5-2-1994, the A-1 came to the house of P.W. 1 and at that time, P.Ws. 1 and 2 requested him not to press for the additional dowry, T.V. and radio, as their financial position was not good and that they would meet his demands within a short time. Then A-1 told them that he would treat the deceased properly and asked them to send the deceased along with him. On 7-2-1994 P.W. 1 sent the deceased to the house of the accused along with P.W. 3 at about 1.00 p.m. On the same night P.W. 6, came to the house of P.W. 1 and informed that the deceased died. Immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased dead under suspicious circumstances. On 8-2-1994 at 10.50 hours, P.W. 1 lodged a report in Chodavaram Police Station and basing on the report, P.W. 12, registered a case in Crime No. 11/1994 under Section 304-B I.P.C. against the accused. After the inquest by P.W. 10, the M.R.O., the dead body of the deceased was sent to P.W. 9, the doctor for conducting autopsy. P.W. 9 along with another doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to suffocation. In the questionnaire both the doctors opined that the death of the deceased is more suggestive case of homicidal. Initially the Court framed the charge under Section 302 and 498-A I.P.C. Subsequently at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, the section of law was altered to one under Section 304B I.P.C., on the ground that the material on record discloses the offence under Section 304-B only and not under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly the trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted A-1, A-3 and A-4 and as the prosecution could not prove the guilt of A-2, acquitted him of all the charges.