Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

M. Anand Kumar Goud & Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

M. Anand Kumar Goud & Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

(High Court Of Telangana)

Criminal Appeal No.426 OF 2012 | 17-11-2022

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused against the judgment in SC No.521 of 2011 dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby A1 to A4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 498-A of IPC, further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 306 of IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st appellant married the daughter of P.W.1 on 17.04.2003. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1 and A4 is the daughter of A2 and A3. At the time of marriage, 150 sq.yds of land was given at Uppal, ten tulas of gold and Rs.1.00 lakh cash and other house hold articles were given.

3. A1 to A4 used to harass the deceased physically and mentally on petty issues and also demanded for additional dowry. Though the appellants were counseled, there was no change in the conduct of these appellants. On 09.02.2011, A1, A2 and A4 beat the deceased, for which reason, a complaint was lodged with Chilkalguda Police Station and counseling was conducted at Women Police Station, Begumpet, where the complaint was referred by Chilkalguda Police. On 15.02.2011 at 8.30 a.m, the deceased called P.W.1 and informed that there was no change in the behavior of the appellants even after counseling was done in the WPS. P.W.1 started to go to the WPS, Begumpet, however, he received a phone call stating that his daughter committed suicide. P.W.1 and others went to the house of the appellants and found the deceased was hanging to the ceiling fan. For the said reason, complaint Ex.P1 was filed. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

4. Learned Sessions Judge having framed the charges for the offences under Section 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, found the appellant guilty as aforesaid on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P7. The accused during the course of cross-examination of witnesses marked Exs.D1 to D12.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the only basis for conviction by the learned Sessions Judge is by reading into the contents of Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is a complaint, which was alleged to have been filed by the deceased with the Begumpet police on 09.02.2011. Though, there is no specific mention of any written complaint being made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the prosecution has introduced Ex.P6 only during the course examination of P.W.8. The said P.W.8, who worked as Inspector of Police, WPS was not even cited as a witness in the charge sheet. However, on the basis of the petition filed by the prosecution, witness was introduced along with Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. Though the learned Sessions Judge, during the chief examination of P.W.8 mentioned that mere marking of documents is different from proving the contents of the documents, committed error in relying upon the contents of Ex.P6 which were not corroborated by either P.W.1 or P.W.2, who are the parents of the deceased. The said Ex.P6 was confronted to P.W.2, having recalled P.W.2 on 09.03.2012, though the evidence of P.W.2 was concluded on 12.12.2011. Since there is no explanation regarding Ex.P6 not being collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be read in evidence to base conviction.

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.2, who is the mother, in fact identified the writings of the deceased in Ex.P6 and also the signature. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in relying upon the contents of Ex.P6. The conviction recorded on the basis of Ex.P6 and also the evidence of the police and other witnesses, who were examined during the course of trial are sufficient to convict and accordingly conviction was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. There being ample evidence on record, the conviction cannot be interfered with.

7. The father of the deceased P.W.1 filed the complaint in the evening of 15.02.2011 stating that the appellants were harassing the deceased. The said information about the harassment meted out to the deceased was the information given by the deceased. Even according to the complaint Ex.P1, there was neither any confrontation with the appellants nor any demand made by these appellants either with P.W.1 or P.W.2. During the course of their examination before the Court, both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that all the appellants used to harass for demand of additional dowry without giving any specific details as to what the demand was. P.W.3, who is the younger brother of P.W.1 and PW.4, who is brother-in-law of P.W.1, also stated that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for want of additional dowry. However, none of the witnesses specified as to what was the additional dowry that was demanded, by appellants. According to P.Ws.1 to 4 appellants never demanded any dowry or money from them directly. Though, it is stated in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 that panchayats were held, the names of the elders or people or any one present during the said panchayats were not given by any of the witnesses nor examined during the course of investigation. There are no details of the approximate date when the said panchayats have taken place.

8. Admittedly, the information given to P.Ws.1 to 4 regarding the harassment is by the deceased, which is hearsay. The source of information to P.Ws.3 and 4 regarding the alleged harassment is not stated by them. However, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not state that they were part of any panchayat or counseling held nor did they speak about any information that was given by the deceased. Vague and omnibus allegations are made regarding demand for additional dowry without giving the details and that too, on the basis of the information given by the deceased to P.W.1. Such evidence would be insufficient to infer that there was instigation, provocation or encouragement to commit suicide. Though a person’s self respect, self-esteem and sensitivity play a major role in the process of taking extreme step of committing suicide, it has to be proved by the prosecution that there was intentional aiding or instigating a person to do a thing. It involves a mental process and such abetment can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. Such facts in a case when looked into collectively should reflect the instigation or aiding a person in committing suicide, failing which an offence under Section 306 of IPC cannot be said to have been proved.

9. The finding of guilt by the Sessions Court is on the basis of Ex.P6. Ex.P6 is dated 10.02.2011. The said complaint was not collected during the course of investigation. For the first time, Ex.P6 was brought on record through P.W.8, who was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. Ex.P7 was also produced by P.W.8, which is an alleged undertaking given by A1 to take care of the deceased wife and to put up a separate residence. Admittedly, Ex.P6 was not registered as a complaint or any entry was made in the case diary. No documents are produced to show that any counseling was held. There is no endorsement on Ex.P6 by any police officer including P.W.8 acknowledging its receipt.

10. Exs.D1 to D6 are the proof of amounts being deposited nearly to an extent of Rs.1.50 lakhs by A1 in favour of his deceased wife. Ex.D7 is a gift settlement deed in favour of deceased on 28.08.2003 whereby, a plot was gifted by P.W.2 to the deceased. Further, it is also admitted that the source of information regarding harassment was the deceased and there was never any demand directly made either by P.W.1 or any of the family members. Exs.D8 to D12 are Kisan Vikas Patras taken in the name of the deceased by A1.

11. Ex.P6 cannot be believed for the reason of the said complaint being produced for the first time before the court at the fag end of trial. No reasons are given as to why Ex.P6 was not handed over to the investigating officer and there is no endorsement or acknowledgment or signature of any of the police personnel of WPS to infer that the document was in fact given by the deceased. Under Ex.P7, an alleged undertaking given by A1, it is mentioned that he would put up a separate residence. None of the witnesses speak about any direct demand, but the deceased had informed about demand for additional dowry. When Ex.P6 is eschewed from consideration, except a bald and vague allegation of demand for additional dowry, there is no other evidence to corroborate the allegations of harassment. The contents of Ex.P6 are not spoken to by any of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4. It is highly improbable that when there are several instances narrated in Ex.P6 regarding the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, PWs.1 and 2 had never stated anything that any event or events that are mentioned in Ex.P6. In Ex.P6, it is stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned the appellants regarding the deceased being sent to Masqat. According to Ex.P6, when P.W.2 went to the house of the appellants, appellants allegedly accused the deceased of stealing. Another incident regarding the deceased being beaten and P.Ws.1 and 2 confronting the appellants is also stated and several other allegations are made. However, not a single incident is narrated by either P.W.1 or P.W.2 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, complaint or evidence before Court which creates a doubt regarding Ex.P6. It appears that Ex.P6 was made up at subsequent stage and brought into existence.

12. In the said circumstances, the documents filed as defence exhibits clearly indicate that several amounts were credited to the account of the deceased by A1 and also fixed deposits were taken by A1 would rule out the allegation of constant demand for additional dowry, in the back ground of demand being only made with the deceased and not with P.Ws.1 and 2.

13. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal succeeds and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Advocate List

  • Smt D. Sangeetha Reddy

  • Sri S.Sudershan

Bench
  • HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Eq Citations
  • 2023 (1) ALT (Crl) 33 (AP)
  • LQ/TelHC/2022/1617
Head Note

Criminal Law — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — S. 4 — Dowry death — Cruelty — Offence — Ingredients — Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2005 — Held, to constitute an offence, it is necessary to prove that the deceased died due to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of the husband for or in connection with any demand for dowry — Such cruelty or harassment must be relatable to demand for dowry and must be of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide and should be viewed from the point of view of a woman of average capacity — Mere demand for dowry is not sufficient to constitute the offence — Though, demand for dowry, harassment or cruelty are not necessary to be proved by direct evidence, they can be proved by leading evidence of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide due to such demand, harassment or cruelty and circumstances should be such as to rule out any other hypothesis — Evidence of demand for dowry by accused and cruelty or harassment by the accused or any relative of the accused for or in connection with any demand for dowry are sine qua non for conviction — Held further, expression “soon before her death” under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is in pari materia with the expression “immediately before her death” and not “on account of her death” — Gap between the instigation or cruelty and suicide may be short or long, depending upon the circumstances of the case — Prosecution has to prove only that the suicide was the result of instigation or cruelty of the accused and not that the suicide took place immediately thereafter — Held also, the fact that the husband and the in-laws are implicated in the suicide of the wife by itself does not prove the guilt — Existence of motive is only a fact to be considered along with other circumstances and is not a conclusive proof of guilt — Intention to commit suicide can be gathered from conduct of victim, statements, circumstances and the mode of suicide — Held also, the concept of ‘living separately’ in Section 4 cannot be read as though it requires separation for any particular length of time — Parting of ways must have proximate nexus with harassment or cruelty prior to deceased leaving the matrimonial home — Gap between parting of ways and the suicide is of no consequence — Question whether the suicide was the result of cruelty or harassment by the accused or any relative of the accused or not is a question of fact to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 10 & 11] Held, in the present case, it is nowhere proved that the appellants were instigating, abetting or aiding the deceased to commit suicide — Ex.P6, which was introduced at the fag end of the trial, cannot be believed for the reason of the said complaint being produced for the first time before the court — No reasons are given as to why Ex.P6 was not handed over to the investigating officer and there is no endorsement or acknowledgment or signature of any of the police personnel of WPS to infer that the document was in fact given by the deceased — Except a bald and vague allegation of demand for additional dowry, there is no other evidence to corroborate the allegations of harassment — The contents of Ex.P6 are not spoken to by any of the witnesses PWs.1 to 4 — It appears that Ex.P6 was made up at a subsequent stage and brought into existence — Held further, the documents filed as defence exhibits clearly indicate that several amounts were credited to the account of the deceased by A1 and also fixed deposits were taken by A1 would rule out the allegation of constant demand for additional dowry, in the background of demand being only made with the deceased and not with PWs.1 and 2 — In the said circumstances, the appeal succeeds and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. [Paras 12, 13 & 14]