SUNKARA SURI BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of A1, A3 and A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and convicting A1 for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The deceased was the wife of A1 having been married on 9-3-1984. A2 is her father-in-law, A3 the mother-in-law and A4 the sister-in-law of the deceased. A2 died during the trial and the case against him was abated. A5 was her another sister-in-law who was only aged 14 years and the learned Sessions Judge has therefore quashed committal in respect of A5 and directed that she be tried by the Juvenile Court. The case of prosecution is that the deceased had committed suicide on 25-4-1989 by burning herself and since this happened within seven years of her marriage and the accused had demanded dowry from her prior to that date and had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with that demand, they were guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The complaint was actually given on 29-4-1989 by PW-1 who is the elder brother of the deceased. He stated in the complaint that 5 sovereigns of gold had been given as Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of marriage, that she was looked after well for four years and she had given birth to two daughters and thereafter she was sent back to her parents house twice for bringing Rs. 15,000.00 to develop the welding shop of the accused and she had been sent back with mediators and later she came to Hyderabad to his house and showed them the injuries on her body and she was again taken back to her husband's place. Subsequently on 25-4-1989 he received a message that she died and when he went to their house on 26-4-1989 she was not there and therefore he had a suspicion that she might have been murdered. PW-4 another brother gave a private complaint on 7-5-1989 practically repeating the same facts stated above and stating that the accused had killed the deceased and tried to burn her in the bathroom and the neighbours had seen the commission of the offence. It is also stated in the private complaint that he was apprehensive that the complaint given to the police may be filed under Section 306 IPC whereas the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC had been committed and the accused should be punished for the same. In the evidence during trial, PW-1 the brother, PW-2 the father of the deceased spoke about the demand for Rs. 15,000.00 and the complaint of the deceased that she was being beaten. PWs 3 and 4 are the two other brothers of the deceased who also spoke about the demand for Rs. 15,000.00. PW-5 is a neighbour of the accused who stated that there was some differences between A-4 the sister-in-law and the deceased on 25-4-1989 and she and her mother went to their house and when they were sitting in the hall they noticed some smoke coming from the bathroom and raised alarm when A2 also came and broke open the door of the bathroom which was locked from inside and found that the deceased died of burn injuries. She stated that PW-3 who had brought the deceased to the house of the accused had met them and her husband and had requested her to look after the deceased. She also stated that A1 had told them that she and the deceased were quarrelling about the children. PW-6 is the husband of PW-5 and he also spoke about the quarrels between A4 and the deceased and about the discovery of the body of the deceased in the bathroom. PW-8 is the mediator who had been sent along with the deceased on an earlier occasion by the father of the deceased who testified of his telling the accused that PW-2 wanted time for payment of Rs. 15,000.00. PW-9 is another neighbour of the accused who stated that he saw A1 beating the deceased on 25-4-1989 when A3 to A5 were remarking that if the deceased was no more they would get Rs. 50,000.00 as dowry on A1 getting married again and subsequently at 2 p.m., he saw the smoke and entered the house along with the others and found the deceased having died of burn injuries in the bathroom. PW-10 is the witness for the observation report. PW-11 is the constable and PW-12 is the Sub-Inspector. PW-13 is the Dy. S.P., vigilance, who investigated the matter. The defence examined one witness being the brother-in-law of the first accused. He statd that the deceased had not been mentally well and had undergone some treatment with the doctor Karri Ramireddy of Rajahmundry, and produced two letters and a prescription to prove the same. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion, on the basis of this evidence, that admittedly there was suicide in respect of which the father and brothers of the deceased grew suspicious as the body was cremated immediately and since the suicide was within seven years of the marriage, A1, A3 and A4 were guilty of the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

(3.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that as far as the offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. was concerned, there was no evidence of demand for dowry inasmuch as dowry has been understood as the amount demanded by an agreement for the marriage and any amount demanded thereafter would not fall within that definition. With reference to the offence under Section 498-A, he submitted that all the witnesses were related to the deceased and were interested witnesses and there was no contemporaneous evidence of any beating of the deceased by the accused and no particular witness had been named for any particular occurrence. He pointed out that the parents and the brothers of the deceased had never taken any interest in her after her marriage and they have not even provided for medical treatment for any injuries she might have had because of the alleged beating. He further pointed out that even the neighbour PW-9 who is supposed to have seen the beating, has not mentioned to anyone or the police at any time. He argued that the allegation that the deceased was being beaten was not proved and on the other hand there was evidence to show that the deceased was actually beating her children which led to some altercation in the family. With reference to the demand for Rs. 15,000.00, the counsel submitted that there was no occasion for such a demand when the accused knew that the family of the deceased was not in a position to meet the demand and since this is stated only by the relations who had not made this allegation earlier, the complaint has been made only because the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage. The counsel drew my attention to the evidence of DW-1 and the letters and the prescription produced by him to submit that the deceased was suffering from some mental illness for which she was having treatment and her sudden decision to commit suicide may be due to that and not due any conduct on the part of the accused.