VEERAMACHANENI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a matrimonial tragedy of an alleged dowry death which resulted in the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The appellant/accused lost his wife and the daughter too due to the incident in question. Facts in brief: The sole accused Veeramanchaneni Satyanarayana/appellant filed this Criminal Appeal against the Judgment dated 9-11-1998 in S.C.No.129/94 on the file of Sessions Judge-Mahila Court-Vijayawada. On the first information furnished by the accused on 16-4-1993 at 2 a.m., Ex.P-4, Cr.No.76/93, Law & Order Patamata Police Station was registered. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada has taken the case as P.R.C.No.15/94 and committed the same to Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada which was transferred to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada on the point of jurisdiction.

(2.) The version of the prosecution is that the accused has been addicted to drinking and he harassed his wife Padmasri @ Padma, hereinafter referred to as first deceased, by making unlawful demands for money subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty that he would marry again if she does not sell away 25 cents of land. Having vexed the first deceased left three death notes and she also murdered her daughter, hereinafter referred to as second deceased by hanging her and committed suicide by hanging herself on 15-4-1993 after 7.30 p.m. and before 10 p.m. Evidence available on record: The evidence of PW-1 to PW-11, Ex.P-1 to P-17, M.Os.1 and 2 and Exs.D-1 to D-6 are available on record. Findings of the learned Judge: Ex.P-4 F.I.R. was given by the accused to police. PW-1 informed the accused that his house was locked. PW-10, cousin of the first deceased and the accused, tried to open along with certain others and after pushing doors of window and opening had observed and confirmed that the first deceased died. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the parents of the first deceased, had been discussed at length. Findings had been recorded in relation to Ex.P-1 letter to the effect that the first deceased demanded her parents to give some amounts supposed to have been given at lagnapatrika and not given to her at the time of marriage. The death notes Exs.P-9 to P-11 had been discussed and certain reasons had been recorded and Ex.P-9 was viewed with some suspicion. Suspicion on the part of the accused in relation to the incident also had been recorded. Finding had been recorded that the accused subjected the first deceased to cruelty. Nexus between the death of the first and the second deceased and harassment and cruel treatment had been established. Evidence of PW-3 to Pw-5 and PW-10 cannot be thrown out as interested evidence. Since death occurred within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances, accused to be convicted. The evidence of PW-1 was not accepted.

(3.) These are the findings of the learned Judge, in nut-shell. Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant would submit that none of the findings recorded by the learned Judge can be sustained. The learned Counsel while taking this Court through the evidence available on record would contend that the evidence of PW-1 is to the effect that all the monetary transactions were being managed by the first deceased only and in such a case it is highly improbable and unnatural that due to the harassment for the produce from Ac.0-25 cents of land or due to harassment for any monetary demand in relation to dowry or otherwise the first deceased would have committed suicide. The ingredients of dowry death had not been satisfied. The learned Counsel also meticulously had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also referred to Ex.P-1 letter and also Exs.P-9 to P-11 death notes. The counsel also would submit that the learned Judge had entertained a suspicion in view of certain sentences in Ex.P-4 and on that ground recorded certain findings unsustainable in law and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the appellant/accused to be convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C. The whole approach adopted by the learned Judge is definitely erroneous since on the aspect of burden of proof the general principles relating to burden of proof in a criminal trial are applicable even in the case of dowry death and unless there is legally acceptable evidence on just mere presumption available in favour of the prosecution, it would be totally unjust to convict the appellant/accused.