Attuluri Krishna Murthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The sole accused is Sessions Case No. 101 of 1990 is the appellant herein. He was tried in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam for a charge punishable u/s 304-B IPC. The second charge against the accused was u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge punishable u/s 304B IPC and therefore he proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced him to suffer RI for seven years. As the accused was sentenced for the substantive offence u/s 304-B IPC, no separate sentence was awarded u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The gravamen of the charges of the accused was that he married the deceased Umarani on 5-6-1983 and harassed her for getting more dowry from her parents and also driven her out of the house and on 13-8-1988 at 7.30 a.m. the deceased Umarani was found dead due to burns within seven years from the date of her marriage and thereby accused alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows : That the deceased Umarani was married to accused on 5-6-1983. She committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person on 13-8-1988. Immediately after the death, her close relations i.e. mother, father, brother and sister etc., came to their village ''Garla''. The information regarding the death was passed on to the Garla Police. It was investigated earlier by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Garla Police Station and the SI of Police, Garla, referred the case as suicide and concluded that there is no harassment or cruelty for the purpose of extracting additional dowry.

Due to subsequent developments in the case, the further investigation in question was handled by PW. 11.

PW. 11 on taking charge of the investigation, he recorded the statements of various witnesses. Earlier inquest panchanama was made by PW 10, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Garla, in the presence of PW. 7, a panch witness. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to PW. 8, Dr. B. Viswanadham, for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem report is produced on record as Ex. P. 8. On completing the investigation, PW. 11 filed the charge sheet. The accused was tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

The learned counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted at the Bar that as per the prosecution story, the deceased Umarani was married on 5-6-1983. At the time of marriage, according to the prosecution witnesses, Rs. 30,000/- was agreed to be paid by way of dowry, but only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid and the balance was agreed to be paid within one year after the marriage.

It was further submitted by the learned counsel that as per the prosecution version, the deceased was sent back to her parents house by the accused-appellant as the remaining amount was not paid. The deceased was residing in the house of her parents for about two months. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased after collecting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- sent back their daughter to the house of the accused and she started residing with her husband.

It was further brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that as per the prosecution version that the accused-appellant started demanding an additional sum of Rs. 2,000/- on the pretext that he had separated from his father and he needed the said amount for the purpose of business. This amount was paid. Thereafter, it is stated by the prosecution that the mother of the deceased had given her a pearls chain, which was pledged by the accused for raising additional funds for his business. The accused did not redeem the pearls chain but it was redeemed by the father of the deceased by paying a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and interest thereon.

It was further brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that as per the version of the prosecution witnesses that the marriage of the younger sister of the deceased viz., PW. 3 was celebrated on 2-7-1988. In the said marriage the parents of the deceased and PW. 3 had paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of dowry to the husband of PW. 3 and therefore the accused started demanding additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the parents of the deceased. On their failure to pay the said amount, the accused alleged to have started harassing the deceased and ultimately she was driven to commit suicide and she died on 13-8-1988 at about 7.30 a.m.

The learned counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant brought to my notice certain important documents which have been produced on record. Ex. D-2 is the document executed between the parties, i.e., the father of the accused-appellant and the father of the deceased. It is dated 6-9-1988. This document was executed within 15 to 20 days from the date of death of the deceased in which the father of the deceased had taken back an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of the accused. The said amount is alleged to have been paid by the father of the deceased to her own daughter i.e. the deceased herein, by way of ''Pasupukumkuma'' (Stri Dhanam) and the father of the deceased and his heirs had agreed in the document that they have no complaint of any kind whatsoever against the accused and his father. Thus, the matter came to an end holding that the deceased committed suicide for the reasons known to her.

The learned counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy further brought to my notice that Ex. P. 11 the representation made by PW. 2, the brother of the deceased, on 12-12-1988 to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in which for the first time the complaint was made alleging that the accused committed murder of the deceased. On receipt of Ex. P. 11, a Joint Secretary of the Chief Minister wrote a letter Ex. P. 10 dt. 16-12-1988 to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad directing him to hand over the investigation to the Women Protection Cell. Thereafter, the IG of Police wrote a letter Ex. P. 12 dated 16-1-1989 directing PW. 11 to take further investigation. Even after the receipt of the letter dated 16-1-1989, PW 11 started investigation in the month of March 1989 and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on 3-3-1989 and thereafter he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4 on 14-9-1990 and then on completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

The defence of the accused is of total denial. It is also suggested by the accused by way of defence that the deceased committed suicide as she was frustrated in the life as she could not bear the children. It is also suggested by the accused by way of defence that the deceased and the accused worshipped ''Nagamayya'' for the purpose of getting children but her attempts were unsuccessful, ultimately she was driven to commit suicide because of frustration. With this defence, the accused claims acquittal.

I proceed to scrutinise the evidence on record so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the accused-appellant.

As stated earlier, the investigation in question earlier was handed by the SI of Police, Garla. After taking up the investigation, he had recorded the statements of various witnesses. PW. 10, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Garla, had conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW. 7, the inquest panch. The inquest panchnama is produced on record as Ex. P. 7. After the inquest panchanama, the arrangements were made for sending the dead body to PW. 8 who was working as Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Garla. He had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found 72% of the burn injuries on the person of the deceased. He had opined that the cause of death was due to extensive burns and primary shock. He had issued a post-mortem report Ex. P. 8.

Looking into the evidence on the point of homicidal death, this Court cannot come to a definite conclusion that this was a case of murder. It can be a case of suicide. It can be an accidental death for the reason that the deceased died because of burn injuries. The burn injures can be caused in the abovesaid three circumstances. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not established that the deceased died homicidal death.

I proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the crime.

The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 11, to establish their case. P.W. 1 happened to be the mother of the deceased. P.W. 2 happened to be the brother of the deceased. P.W. 3 happened to be the sister of the deceased. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are the neighbours of the deceased and they did not support the prosecution case. P.W. 7 is the inquest panch. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 9 is the Doctor, who had passed on death intimation to the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Garla, who had conducted the inquest panchanama on the dead body. P.W. 11 is the Investigating Officer.

P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the material witnesses in this case. P.W. 1, as stated earlier, happened to be the mother of the deceased. She has given a graphic description of the manner in which the accused and the deceased were married. She further stated that at the time of marriage, they had agreed to give a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of dowry but out of the said amount only Rs. 25,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and the remaining balance of Rs. 5000/- was agreed to be paid within one year after the marriage. She further stated that when they were not able to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 5000/-, the accused started beating and harassing the deceased. She further stated that on two occasions they paid Rs. 200/- and Rs. 300/- and also the balance of Rs. 5000/-. It appears in the version of P.W. 1 that the marriage of her younger daughter i.e., P.W. 3''s marriage was settled and was performed on 2-7-1988. In the said marriage they agreed to give a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the husband of P.W. 3. When the accused noticed that the husband of P.W. 3 getting more dowry, he started demanding additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the parents of the deceased. When the parents of the deceased could not cope up with the demand, the deceased committed suicide by burning herself. In the cross-examination P.W. 1 has admitted without any hesitation that the document Ex. D-2 was executed by her husband, herself, her son P.W. 2 and one close relation. Ex. D-2 reads as follows :

"Settlement Agreement got written on 6th September 1988 in favour of Attuluri Lakshmi Narasaiah S/o late Sarvaiah, R/o Garla, Garla Mandal, Khammam District, by Bollem late Lingaiah''s son Sundaraiah R/o Jangilikonda village, Mahaboobanagar Mandal Warangal District, at present residing at Garla is as follows :

I have given a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand Rupees) at the time of marriage of my daughter Uma Rani under Pasupukumkuma (Stri Dhanam) as that girl died due to unavoidable reasons you have paid the above mentioned money to me this day. I received the same. From today onwards neither I nor my heirs will have any kind of objection. If any objection is raised in future I shall myself be held liable for the same.

To this effect is the settlement, Agreement executed by me with consent.

Sd/- in Telugu Gollam Sundaraiah, Suseela, Witnesses. B. Satyam, B. Venkanna.

M. Seetharama Rao

Mallam Srinivasa Rao

V. Nageswara Rao

Kalapata Pandurangaiah

B. Sudershan Rao

Scribe : Thodelu Balalakshmaiah."

By reading Ex. D-2, it is evident that the said document was executed on 6-9-1988 i.e., within 30 days from the date of death of the deceased Umaranai. Even at the point of time also the close relations of the deceased i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3, never spoke about the dowry being paid to the accused at the time of his marriage with the deceased, but it was the version of all the above witnesses that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only was paid to the deceased by way of ''Pasupukumkuma'' and even at that time they had no suspicion of any kind that the deceased committed suicide because of the dowry harassment. They have stated in the said document that the deceased died due to unavoidable reasons. The unavoidable reasons have not been explained by the prosecution but it has been explained by the defence stating that the deceased could not bear the child for many years and therefore she was frustrated in life and they worshipped ''Nagamayya'' for getting the children. On one occasion i.e., on 13-8-1988 the deceased and her husband were going to the temple of ''Nagamaiah'' performing pooja in the early morning at 7.30 a.m. At that time the father of the accused alleged to have made enquiries with them as to where they were going, thereupon the secret of the husband and wife going to ''Nagamaiah'' temple for getting the children was disclosed to the father of the accused and the deceased got annoyed. Ultimately she was driven to commit suicide.

It appears that for the first time after four months of the death of the deceased i.e., 12-12-1988 P.W. 2 realised that his sister died because of the harassment given by the accused and therefore he gave a representation Ex. P-11 to the Chief Minister and thus the investigation started and the charge sheet was filed.

Looking into the entire evidence as brought on record and the document Ex. D-2, I hold that this case has been foisted against the accused by the prosecution witnesses with due deliberation and with due discussion to extract more money from the accused person. Under such circumstances, I hold that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be upheld.

The learned counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy brought to my notice certain discrepancies the manner in which the prosecution was conducted. The learned counsel further submitted at the Bar that even as per the version of prosecution witnesses, the S.I. of Police had investigated into the matter and had concluded that no offence of dowry death was disclosed and therefore the case was referred. Whatever statements he had recorded during the said investigation, they were not produced in the Court and even the copies of the same were not also supplied to the accused for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. Taking the abovesaid facts into consideration, I hold that the accused was not given fair opportunity to defend himself.

Under such circumstances, the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-appellant are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond executed by him stands cancelled.

Appeal allowed.