M. Yadaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh

This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dt. 29-5-1992 passed by the II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 104/89, convicting the appellant for an offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The Prosecution case in brief may be summarised thus : The Accused-Appellant M. Yadaiah is the husband of the deceased Andalu, and they .. .. ..

were married in the year 1986. A-2 is the mother of A-1, A-3 is the sister of A-1 and A-4 is the husband of A-3. The deceased Andalu died of drowning on 8-3-88 in Kartala Rajaiah well situated at Bandlaguda. According to the prosecution, all these four accused persons had subjected her to cruelty and harassment and ill-treated and tortured her to bring 1 1/2 tolas of gold from her parents by way of dowry; the 1st accused was also threatening her that he would go for the second marriage. For sometime after the marriage the accused and the deceased lived a happy and peaceful life, but thereafter all the four accused persons started il-treating and harassing the deceased demanding dowry as aforesaid. On the date of occurrence in the morning hours, the 1st accused reached the house of PW-1, the brother of the deceased and told him that his wife i.e. the deceased was missing from the house. Then a search was made in this regard. PW-2 is the step brother of the deceased, PW-3 is the step-mother of the deceased and PW-10 is the father of the deceased. They all went to search the deceased near about the wells in the Bandlaguda locality and when the search was made in Kartala Rajaiah well the deceased was found drowned in that well. The dead body was removed from the said well next day at 2 p.m. A police report was lodged in the Chandrayangutta Police Station. The police started investigation in the case after registering a case as Cr. No. 36/88 u/s 498-A I.P.C. and 302 I.P.C. r/w. Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently the case was altered to Section 304-B I.P.C. r/w. Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation the statements of the parents and the brothers of the deceased were recorded. The Investigating Officer reached the scene of occurrence and prepared panchanama in the presence of mediators. The Mandal Revenue Officer conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. K. Raj Gopal Reddy. The accused were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody and after completing the investigation in the case chargesheet was filed in the Court.

The charges for the offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C. were framed against all the four accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 12 exhibits. When examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. all the accused denied their guilt and stated that the deceased was not mentally sound at the time of her death. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted A-2 to A-4 of the charges levelled against them, but convicted A-1, the husband of the deceased Andalu and sentenced him as aforesaid.

The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently argued that firstly it is non proved that the deceased committed suicide, secondly it was not a case of dowry death and thirdly there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any dowry. Firstly, I would venture to consider and analyse as to whether the instant case is a case of dowry death. In this regard it is worthwhile to consider the definition of dowry as given u/s 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the dowry death as defined in Section 304-B of I.P.C. For the sake of convenience these provisions are reproduced here as under :

Definition of "Dowry" - In this Act, "dowry" means any proper or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person.

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation II-The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Section 304-B of I.P.C. reads thus :

304-B. Dowry death : (1) where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death," and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation -----------------

(2) -------------------------

Looking to the definition of dowry as given in the Dowry Prohibition Act it comes to light that the property or valuable security must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection of the marriage of the said parties. Thus, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the alleged property i.e. 1/4th or 1 1/2 tolas of gold was demanded in connection with the marriage and not independently. After the marriage, for bringing the case as a case of dowry death it must be proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry. Now, in the light of the factual aspect of the instant case this has got to be examined. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case are PW-1, brother of the deceased, PW-2, step brother of the deceased, PW-3 step mother of the deceased and PW-10 father of the deceased. Looking to their depositions, firstly, I find that there is no consistency with regard to the amount of gold demanded and secondly though they have deposed that since they had promised before the marriage to give the alleged gold and because it was not given, after the marriage there was a demand from the side of the accused persons, but, surprisingly enough, this important aspect of their statement is missing in their earlier statements u/s 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer, PW-11, who has deposed very clearly that in the statements of PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 10 recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. it is not stated by them that they had promised to give 1 1/2 tolas of gold more after the marriage. Thus, this important omission in the 161, Cr.P.C. statements of these witnesses does go to indicate that what they had deposed in this regard before the Court was nothing but an after-thought and improvement. In other words, on this basis, it is clear that if at all such a demand was there, it could not be linked to have been in connection with the marriage as no promise or agreement at the time of marriage or before or after the marriage could be established. Thus, I am of the view that such demands, if at all they were there, would not fall within the meaning of dowry and even if all other requirements of Section 304-B of I.P.C. are satisfied, it would not be a dowry death. A Division Bench of this High Court in Ayyala Rambasu v. State of A.P. ((1993) (1) ALT (Cri) 73) has also taken a similar view.

Now, coming to the point as to whether the deceased had committed suicide or whether it was an accidental death, it is pertinent to note that Ex.P-3 panchanama of the scene of occurrence goes to indicate that the well from which the dead body of the deceased was taken out was in a square shape and there was no parapet wall and the diameter of the well was about 30. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the deceased was given provocation by the accused persons to commit suicide. There is no iota of evidence from either side of the prosecution to indicate that she had committed suicide. Under these circumstances, the probability of her accidental death, in my opinion, could not be ruled out. This aspect further goes to strengthen the fact that the death was not a dowry death.

On the basis of the above discussion of factual and legal aspects involved in this case. I am of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge for the Offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C. against the accused-appellant.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant are set aside.

Appeal allowed.