MUMMIDI UDAYA BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C by accused (A-l) M.Udaya Bhaskar who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years in S.C.No.293 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The appellant/A-1 got married to Mummidi Kasiratnam (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) five years prior to the date of the occurrence. P.W.1 K.Satyanarayana is father, P.W.2 K. Venkateswar Rao is brother and P.W.3 K.Raghavulu is mother of the deceased. P.W.4 K.Gouri is the daughter-in-law of P.W.I and P.W.3. P.W.I gave Rs.20,000/- towards dowry and Rs.350/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam at the time of the marriage of the deceased with the appellant/ A-l. He also presented six sovereigns of gold to the deceased. Acquitted accused (A-2) is the mother of the appellant/A-1. The deceased lived in her nuptial home for about a month after the marriage. During her stay in the nuptial home, it is alleged, the appellant/A-1 and his mother/A-2 ill-treated her and beat her on the ground of additional dowry. The appellant/A-1 said to have demanded the deceased to bring money from her parents for purchase of lorry. Since the demand of the accused was not complied with, the deceased was sent to her parental home with instructions to return marital home with money. During the stay of the deceased in her parental home, the appellant/A-1 used to visit her and demand her additional dowry. He also used to beat her on that score. Five or six days prior to the incident the deceased said to have expressed her desire to go to her in-laws house and therefore, P.W.I sent the deceased through his daughter-in-law(P.W.4) who took the deceased to the house of her in-laws. When the deceased came to the house of her in-laws, appellant/A-1 allegedly enquired the deceased as to whether she has brought the money and that on her replying in negative, he beat her with a tiffin carrier and thereupon P.W.4 intervened and advised the appellant/A-1 not to beat the deceased. P.W.4 returned to her in-laws house after dropping the deceased in the house of the appellant/accused and appraised P.W.I of what all happened at the house of the appellant/accused. On the afternoon of 8.8.1998 the deceased committed suicide by hanging in her in-laws house. P.W.6 M.Appa Rao, the father-in- law of the deceased presented Ex.P-1 report before the SHO, I Town (L&O) P.S., Kakinada on 8.8.1998 at 7 p.m. P.W.12 K.Hanumanth Rao received Ex.P-1 report and registered a case in Cr.No. 102/98 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and issued FIR. He visited the scene of offence, conducted panchanama in the presence of P.W.9 Arjun Rao and got the scene of offence photographed by P.W.7 Sheikh Ashraf Ali. Ex.P-4 is the observation report, Ex.P-7 is the rough sketch and Ex.P-2 is bunch of photographs numbering five along with the negatives. He sent requisition to Mandal Executive Officer to conduct the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 B.Yadagiri, Mandal Executive Officer, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W-9, L.W.18 M.Tirumalam and L.W.19 Salad Veerendera Prasad. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 during the inquest and recorded their statements. Basing on the statements of the witnesses examined during the inquest, the panchas opined that the deceased committed suicide by hanging being not able to put up with the ill-treatment of the appellant/accused. Ex.P-3 is the inquest report scribed by P.W.9. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. P.W.10 Dr. T. Rama Rao conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.8.1998 at 4.15 p.m. and noted the following injuries:

(3.) Sri Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ A-l contends that the lower Court failed to note the improvements made by P.Ws.l to 4 on vital aspects in their evidence before the Court over their police statements. It is also contended by him that P.Ws.l to 3 did not whisper of dowry harassment when the Mandal Revenue Magistrate examined them during the inquest and they spoke about the dowry demand for the first time before the Court. Therefore, their evidence with regard to the dowry demand is liable to be discarded. In order to convince the Court that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 contains embellishments and improvements on vital aspects, he took me to the depositions of PWs.l to 4 in detail. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 in right perspective in finding that the appellant/A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and therefore the impugned judgment is not liable to be interfered in this appeal. He further submits that the prosecution is able to prove all the essential ingredients of dowry death to bring home the guilt of the appellant/ A-1 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC by examining PWs.l to 4. It is also submitted by him that it is too much for any one to expect P.Ws.l to P.W.3 to narrate details of harassment during the inquest since they were under sudden bereavement and grief and that more particularly P.Ws.1 and 3 who are parents of the deceased may have suffered shock by seeing the unnatural death of their daughter and the sudden bereavement or grief must have shut their mouths at the time of inquest.