Kollipaka Srinivasa Rao vs The State, SHO

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—It is the case of an young lady about 21 years old who, within two years of her marriage, died. The death is suicidal in nature and it has been established by the medical evidence also. Charges were framed u/s 306 and 498A IPC. A-1 to A-7 were faced with trial. To prove the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined and documents, Exs..P-1 to P-9 were marked . The learned Additional Assistant, Sessions Judge, Vijayawada who has got the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and who has got an opportunity to read to the contents of the documents, came to the conclusion that A-1 alone can be convicted and the rest of the persons can be acquitted. Accordingly, A-1 was found guilty of the offence u/s 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer SI for 20 days and to undergo RI for a period of four years and shall also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-; indefault to suffer SI for one month for the offence u/s 306 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is against that an appeal has been filed. The appellate Court also duly taking into consideration the introduction of Section 113A of the Evidence Act and drawing a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband in case of dowry deaths and also taking into account the evidence of P.Ws. 5 to 7 in particular, with reference to Ex-1, came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the harassment resulted in the hands of her husband and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1. It is against that the present revision has been filed.

Powers under revision to be exercised by this Court in case of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts, is very limited.

Sri M.S. Rajalingam, the learned Counsel for the accused stated that both the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in holding that the alleged suicide having been committed within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage is a reasonable ground to presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband. Except a bald statement that all the circumstances of the case go to prove the abetment there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the incident of suicide and its abetment. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused A-1. The Court has to assess the evidence and remove chaff from the grain and has to come to the conclusion whether all or any one of them has committed the offence or not. The very fact that he gave benefit of doubt on the same evidence by acquitting A-2 to A-7 itself is an indication that he has applied his mind and probed further and arrived at the conclusion that A-1 is the person responsible for causing the death of the deceased. When detailed investigation has been made and the Court has applied its mind and gave benefit of doubt to A-2 to A-7, it cannot be said that A-1 also is entitled for the benefit of doubt as was given by the trial Court to A-2 to A-7.

It is contended that P.Ws. 5 to 7 are the neighbours and out of them two witnesses have turned hostile and the two Courts ought not to have given much credence or value to their testimony. Normally, in the case of dowry deaths, the parents, brothers, and the relations of the deceased are being examined, but, in this case, the prosecution thought it fit to examine the neighbours who are available. P.W.5 supported the case of the prosecution that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased and there was a panchayat and that nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. Normally, the neighbours of the accused, P.Ws. 5 to 7 are the persons who sail along with the accused so that they may not purchase any enimity with them. Their interests in the family of the deceased is remote and that there is general agreement between P.Ws. 5 to 7 with that of P.Ws. 2, 3 on the aspect that there was harassment from the side of the first accused to the deceased. If there is any animosity in the evidence of these witnesses, certainly the Court has to take note of that fact and say that because of that animosity, they have given that evidence But in this case, there is nothing of that sort, P.W. 5 supported the case of the prosecution and stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased and nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence: So, his evidence has to be taken into consideration. P.Ws. 6 and 7 have turned hostile so far as the second part of the statement that has been made by them in Exs. P-3 and P-4 recorded by the Police. So far as the first part of the evidence that has been recorded by them, in the Chief Examination of P.Ws. 6 and 7 it is clear that the harassment plea as pleaded has already been stated by them. The evidence of P.Ws. 5 to 7 that there were disputes between the deceased and the first accused has been strengthened by the contents of Ex.P-T which was admittedly reduced into writing by the panchayat elders. P.W.1 is the person that was examined to prove Ex. P-1. It is not the case of the accused that there was not a panchayat at all. There was a panchayat and in that panchayat, the elders have reduced into writing Ex.P-1 undertaking letter. Ex. P-1 consists of two parts;: The first part relates to the health and treatment by the accused and the spending of money with regard to the medical expenses etc. The second part is that none of the relations of the accused should interfere in the marital affairs of the accused and the deceased. The second part gives us a clue that there was some interference from the relations of the accused and due to that reason the elders came to the conclusion that the relations should not interfere. We are not here to find out as to how the panchayat has been convened. We are here to consider whether the recitals in Ex.P-1 amply justify that'' there was some harassment and disputes in the family of the accused. Similar undertaking has not been obtained from the family members of the deceased. The object of the panchayat which reduced the undertaking letter Ex.P-1 into writing is to see that the first accused and the deceased live amicably and happily and the dispute between them has been settled. Having taken into consideration Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7, it can be said that there is harassment, by the first accused on the deceased. The ingredients of Section 498A IPC are that whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty and harassment shall be punished with imprisonment. Here it is a case of suicidal death. Even Section 113A of the Evidence Act has been introduced only to give effect to the provision contained in Sections 498A and 306 IPC. If there is harassment and if there is unnatural death that has resulted in suicide, the Court in the case of dowry deaths is competent to take the aid of Section-113A of the Evidence Act. The evidence of P.W.2 is that he has not heard anything for the last 7 months after Ex. P-1 has been executed. Still it can be said that it is only the result of harassment that has been made in the house of the accused where she was living at the time of her death which ultimately resulted in her committing suicide. If the deceased died at her parents'' house, we must make a close scrutiny of the evidence. But here the deceased was in the company of her husband and none of the persons of the deceased were available. In this case, even after the death of Ex.P-1 till she died, they were living together and what made her to die is not known. So the prosecution has to draw a presumption when an young lady of 21 years even without completing two years of her marriage has put an end to her life by committing suicide. P.W. 16 is the S.I. of Police. The Lower Court also commented about the investigation that has been made. In the case of dowry deaths, separate procedure with regard to inquest has been contemplated. But, if he has not followed in case of dowry deaths, is not a matter that can be taken note of in giving acquittal to A-1 particularly, when the Court is in a position to assess the evidence and arrive at the conclusion.

For all the foregoing reasons, the offences against A-1 u/s 498A IPC and u/s 306 IPC are confirmed and the sentence is reduced to two years R.I. for offence u/s 498A IPC and also two years R.I. for offence u/s 306 IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The fine imposed remained intact. The Criminal Revision is dismissed with the modification of the sentences.