OOg stating that the marriage of his brother,s daughter, narr ely v. Kranti, nas solemnized

Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI\',.S RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1270 of 2014 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has bccn {-rled by the appr: zrnts/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggricved b1, the judgment passed I. the Iearned Metropolitan Sessions Judgc, Cyberabad at L.Fr \agar, dated

25.11.2O14, in S.C.No.67 1 of 2013, where under, the rr rpellants were found guilry for thc oflence under Section 49g-A of rI r, Inrjian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and convicted and sent,) rced ro suffer simple imprisonment lor a pcriod of three years ancl o pay fine of Rs. 1,00O/- by each of the appellant zrnd in default, t ; suffer simple imprisonment for a pcriod of one month cach.

2. For the sake of convenicncc, the parties herein i re relerred to as they were arrayed beforc thc tri:rl Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell: 3.1. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint ,r r 0l.lI.2OOg stating that the marriage of his brother,s daughter, narr ely V. Kranti, nas solemnized \,",ith accused No. 1 on 03.05.2009. As /. Kranti was pursuing her B.Com final year at Eluru and accus :d No.l was pursuing his B.Tcch. tinal ycar at Hyderabad, thr., wt:re living separalely. V. Kranti uscd to visit hcr matrimonizrl rome during festivals, holidays and other occasions. On 31. tO.2OO,, rt 7.30 A.M., he dropped V. Krar-rti at hcr maLnn-ronial home in Ftr r <:rabad. On 2 it only further stated that

01. 1 1.2009, accused No.2 telephoned him and asked him to come immediately. When he reached their house, the accused informed him that V. Kranti had 66mrni11sd suic.ide by jumping from the 4d, floor. When he questioned them about the incident, they stated that they had no knowledge of how it happened and that they came to know about when their watchman informed them. It is for about four months prior to the incident, accused No. I had been subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment lor additional dowry and get money by selling Ac'5 00 0f land- The deceased used to inform her mother about this harassment. In this regard, the parents of the deccased confronted accused Nos.2 and 3 about the attitude of accused No. 1 and requested them to look after her properly and ensure that such harassment was not repeated. However, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused persons. 3'2' Basing on the said complaint, crime No.1352 of 2009 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 3O4-B IPC and the Investigating Offlcer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet and the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur, took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-8 IpC and numbered it as pRC No.lg6 of 2013 and committed the case to the Court o[ Sessions and numbered it as S.C.N o.6Zl of I t I I I I ' .....: ''-'-7 ,/ /, ,,' 1 l - 20 13 on the file oI t.he learned MetropoliLan ! essions Judge, Cyberabad at L. B. Nagar

3.3. On behall of the prosecution, pws. I to 14 u,c,r : examined and Bxs.Pi to P9 got marked. On behalf of defence, n ., witnesses were examined and Exs.D 1 to D6 were marked.

3.4' Learned sessions Judge after taking into consic eration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after he irr ng the parties, acquitted accused Nos. r to 3 for the charged offerrr r uncrer Section 3O4 B IPC, however, convicted them for the offenc.r under Section 498-A iPC as stated above. Aggrieved by the same , ir <;used Nos.1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, lcarned j:nior Counsel representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counse I for acc I ;ed Nos.1 to 3, and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, lcarned Assistant p I :lic prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5. Submissions of the learned Senior Couns e . for accused Nos.1 to 3:

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that accus rd Nos.1 to 3 have not committed the alleged offence lcvclled agairr ,t them. Even according to the allegatrons made in the complainr, Ex.pl, charge sheet and evidence on record, the ingredients of 1h,r offence under Section 498-A IpC are not attracted. He further sul_rr I ttccl that even \ i\ I I I ..t ..1 4 according to the prosecution, accused No. 1 and deceased never lived together continuously after the marriage, because the deceased was prosecuting her B_Com. (Computers) Final year at Eluru and accused No. 1 was prosecuting B.Tech Final year at Hyderabad. .PW.6, father of the deceased, and pW.4, junior paternal uncle of the deceased, used to drop the deceased at the house of the accused whenever the deceased had holidays. Hence, the question of harassment by the accused does not arise.

5.2. Hc further submitted that Ex.p. 1 does not mention any dowry i.e., cash of Rs.2,00,OOO/-, 30 rolas of gold and Ac.5.00 gts. of land, was allegedly given by thc parents of the deceased to the accused persons at the time marriage and also there is an interpolation in Ex.P. 1 that accused No.t harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry by selling Ac.S.OO of land, which was given to her. He further submitted that in Ex.p. 1, there is no allegation of entrustment of giving dowry at the time of marriage and there is an interpolation regarding demand of additional dowry. pW. 13_Investigating Ofhcer admitted in his evidence abou[ interpolation in Ex.p. 1.

5.3. Even according to the evidence of pWs.4 and 6, the deceased informed her mother only about the alleged demand of additional dowry by the accused, however, she died prior to commencement of the trial. The trial Court relied upon the hearsay evidence of pWs.4 \- -=7 5 and 6 convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offer;e under Section

498.A IPC

5.4. He also submitted that pWs. 1 and 4 to i are interested witnesses and the conviction of accused Nos.1 tt 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was based solely on their t rstimony and the same is not permissible under law

5.5 He further submitted that basing upon the r vidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted ac; rsed Nos.1 to 3 holding that they were not found guilty for the char 1 ed offence under section 3o4-B IPC, on the other hand, convicted thc n for the offence under Section 498-A IPC basing on the very same r.idence and the same is not permissible under law.

5.6. He further submitted that pw.5 in her chi: -affidavit stated that the deceased informed her that she was har;r ;sed by accused No.1 for additional dowry and accused Nos.2 and li used [o support him. However, in her cross-examination, pW.5 spe r ifically admitted that she had not stated the above said allegations e tler to the police or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of tlL Cr.p.C.

5.7. He also submitted that pWs.1 and 4 to 6 ir lmitted in their cross-examination that they rn ere never informed directly by the deceased-regarding the harassment of accused N<. r for aclditional dorvry. 2116 that they came to knou, about the all,r ;cd harassment I l 6 onty through the wife of PW'6 Thcir evidence, therefore, amounts to hearsay, w'hich is inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Basing upon such evidence' the trial Court convicted accused Nos.l to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

5.8. He further submrtted that the prosecution has not established and proved the ingredients of Scction 498-A IPC that the deceased committed suicide on account of physical and mental harassment by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that such harassment'constitutes'cruelty''

5.9. In support of his contcntion, he relied upon thc following j udgme nts Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhandr; iil Gananath Pattnaik 'r' State of Orissa2; iiil Bakshish Ram and another v' State of Punjab3; and iv) Shoor Singh and another v' State of Uttarakhanda' Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 6 6. 1. Per contra,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by thc prosecution, rightly convictecl accused Nos l to 3 for