KHANDAVALLI AMITH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20-08-2004 passed in S.C.No.108 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder the appellant-A1 was convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

(2.) THE brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows: A-1 and A-3 are the sons of A-2. A-1 is working as Development Officer in LIC at Gopalapuram. The deceased by name Khandavalli Florence @ Anitha is the sister of PW-2 and daughter of PW-3. The deceased was married to A-1 on 31-08-1990. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused, the parents of the deceased paid Rs.1,20,000.00 towards dowry in addition to other formalities. After marriage, having not satisfied with the said dowry amount, A-1 started demanding the deceased for a motor cycle and other household articles, and was harassing her for the same. In that connection, the deceased filed a criminal case against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC etc. and subsequently, the same was compromised and her parents agreed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000.00 to A-1 towards the cost of the motorcycle. Thereafter, A-1 demanded the deceased for an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 to purchase the car. Meanwhile, the marriage of the sister of the deceased, was fixed. Then A-1 told the deceased that her sister 's marriage was fixed by giving dowry of Rs.1,00,000.00, but his demand of Rs.1,00,000.00 to purchase the car was not complied with. As the deceased did not oblige to the demand of A-1, he attempted to throw away her into Godavari river from the road-cum-rail bridge, while returning from Rajamundry side, but the passersby went to her rescue and saved her life. The deceased also wrote letters Exs.P-23 to P-25 to their parents about the harassment and cruelty caused by A-1 towards her. On 26-07-1996, A-1 and the deceased went to Eluru to the house of PW-2 to attend the house warming ceremony. At that time, A-1 asked the deceased to demand Rs.1,00,000.00 from her mother, for which the deceased refused. Then A-1 demanded PWs.2 and 3 for the said amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 and PW-3 replied that she would adjust that money later. Then A-1 beat the deceased in the function in the presence of all the invitees and took away her from the function. On 02-08-1996 A-2 and A-3 abused the deceased and A-1 beat her which was witnessed by her son (PW-1). The harassment and cruelty caused by the accused abetted the deceased to go inside the bathroom and bolted the doors from inside and poured kerosene on her body and set fire to herself and committed suicide on the same day i.e., 02-08-1996. On hearing the cries from the house of the deceased, PWs.5 and 6 went to the spot and noticed the flames and smoke coming from the bathroom. PWs.6 and 8 extinguished the fire by pouring water, broke open the doors of the bathroom and noticed the dead body of the deceased with burn injuries. PW-12, the village servant, after coming to know about the incident, visited the spot, noticed the dead body of the deceased in the bath room and went to the VAO, and informed about the incident. The VAO rushed to the spot and noticed the dead body of the deceased in the bathroom and enquired about the cause of death and thereafter gave Ex.P-12, report to the police. Basing on the same, the police registered Crime No.64 of 1996 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, held in quest over the dead body of the deceased and after due investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file and numbered as P.R.C.No.72 of 1996, and while considering the material on record and having satisfied that there is a prima facie case, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court, basing on the averments in the charge sheet, framed the charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

(3.) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-A1, mainly argued that the finding the trial Court that a duty is cast on the appellant to explain the compelling circumstances, which made the deceased to commit suicide, is not correct and the conviction placing reliance on the highly interested testimonies of PWs.2, 3, 10 and 11 is erroneous. He further argued that the trial Court failed to see that PWs.1, 4 and 11 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile, moreover the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is of no consequence in view of the material particulars regarding the payment of amount for the household articles, in the light of the evidence of DW-1 and Exs.D-9 to D-13. He also argued that to prove the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, there should be harassment for, or in connection with, demand of dowry, but Ex.P-24, letter, dated 08-04-1994, is about two years prior to the incident, and a perusal thereof and another letter Ex.P-23, nowhere the deceased had written about the alleged harassment of A-1 for dowry, and none of the neighbours were examined to prove the alleged harassment. He further laid stress heavily on Exs.P-23 to P-26, which are crucial documents, and urged that those documents are not proved, as the handwriting expert was not examined, and Ex.P-26, diary, seized in the house of the deceased did not prove that the incidents narrated therein are written by the deceased, and therefore, without proving Ex.P-26, diary, the letters in Exs.P-23 to P-25 cannot be said to be written by the scribe who prepared Ex.P-26 and thus, the finding of the trial Court placing reliance on Exs.P-23 to P-26, in any view of the matter, is not sustainable.