Pappala Venkataramana vs State of Andhra Pradesh

These two appeals arise out of same judgment. While appeal No. 1007 of 1991 is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded against original accused No. 1, the appeal No, 1248 of 1991 is preferred by the State against acquittal of original accused No. 2. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Accused No. 1 Pappala Venkataramana is the son of accused No. 2 Pappaia Satyavatamma w/o Pappala Venkataraju. Accused No. 1 was married to Vasantha d/o Jaddu Ramunaidu. Accused No. 1 was serving as an attender in the District Sessions Court of Visakhapatnam. The marriage of Vasantha with accused No. 1 took place on 6-4-1988 at Peddapurli village near Palakonda. The marriage was held according to custom. Vasantha died on 14-10-88 or on the night preceding it. Her dead body was found floating in a public well in Dondaparthy, which is part of Visakhapatnam and in the nearby locality of which accused No. 1 resides with his parents. These are all not disputed facts.

The prosecution case is that at the time of the marriage accused No. 1 was to be given a dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and a wrist watch and certain other articles. However, only Rs. 19,000/- were actually given at the time of the marriage by the parents of Vasantha and the watch which was offered as a gift did not satisfy in quality. Accused No. 1 as well as his mother were since then very much dissatisfied. Within few days after the marriage both the accused started pestering Vasantha on this account. She was harassed and was told that she was neither good looking nor did her parents give the agreed dowry or a good quality wrist watch and other articles as per custom. She was told that had accused No. 1 chosen some other girl he would have received much more dowry and gifts and a better wife. It is further contended that victim Vasantha had conveyed the demands of her husband and the harassment to her to her parents during her visits and in her letters written, to her parents. The accused however, did not stop the harassment and ultimately Vasantha committed suicide by jumping into the well on the intervening night of 13/14th of October, 1988 i.e. within about 6 1/2 months from her marriage. As the death took place so soon after the marriage a crime was registered against accused persons and on due investigation they were sent to face their trial in the court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Both the accused were charged for offences punishable u/s 498-A IPC and in the alternative for offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC. They were also charged with offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. The defence of the accused was of denial of harassment. According to their version Vasantha was suffering from Jaundice or some other disease of her stomach. Neither accused No. 1 nor accused No. 2 were in the house on the night of incident. Accused No. 1 had gone for attending his duty to the court and accused No. 2 was out of town. They are not aware as to how and why Vasantha committed the act. One defence witness was examined.

The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 2 of all the charges framed against her. He acquitted accused No. 1 of charges under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC but convicted him u/s 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

Though the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all, the material evidence comes from the parents of deceased Vasantha and sister of Vasantha. Varalakshmi. The evidence of other witnesses is of formal nature and will be referred to briefly but, subsequently. P.W. 1 is a resident of Pogiri village in Srikakulam district. After deposing about the marriage of Vasantha with accused No. 1 and payment of Rs. 19,000/- in cash at the time of marriage to accused No. 1, the witness stated that accused No. 1 refused to accept the watch which was offered as gift on the ground that it was of cheaper variety. He next states that in the month of Asadam as per practice prevalent in the community. Vasantha was brought back to her parental home. This practice is well known and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence on this count. The witness then says that at that time Vasantha had complained that both the accused were harassing her on the ground of inadequate dowry and also on the ground that appropriate sarees were not gifted to her when she was sent to her matrimonial home. As a result, the witness says that appropriate sarees were purchased and when Vasantha was sent back to her matrimonial house in the month of Shravan to join her husband, those sarees were sent with her. At this juncture it would be proper to refer on this point to evidence of the mother of the victim Jaddu Venkataramana, P.W. 2. She states that when Vasantha came in the month of Asadam her complaint was that accused No. 1 was taunting her on account of her looks and was angry because of deficit dowry of Rs. 1,000/- which remained unpaid. Thus it will be seen that the mother of the victim does not say any thing about non-gifting of quality sarees to Vasantha at the time of the marriage. Normally such type of grievance if at all was made by the accused. Vasantha would have conveyed it to the mother rather than to the father. It is very difficult to believe the father''s version that there was a complaint about bad quality of sarees having been gifted to Vasantha.

The father then goes on to depose that when Vasantha returned in the month of Shravan to join her husband he had followed after some time and gone to Dondaparthi which is the place of residence of accused No. 1. He then says that when he went there both the accused quarrelled with him saying that full dowry remained unpaid and that they would have received more dowry had some different girl been approved. The father says that he then left within one hour of this incident and returned back to his village. It is not known for what purpose he had really gone only for an hour at that time. The village of accused is about four hours distance away from the place of residence of the father of the victim. On this point the mother of the victim has not said a word about such subsequent visit of her husband (P.W. 1) to the accused in the month of Shravan. On the other hand, there is totally different version of mother of the victim. It is that during the month of Shravan accused No. 1 himself had come and visited their house. Such visit is not deposed to by P.W. 1. The mother (P.W. 2) says that accused No. 1 left and went away without taking the daughter with him on the ground that he was not given good dress material. Now this is again a new story not deposed to by the father, P.W. 1.

The father, P.W. 1 then goes on to state that on the eve of "Atlataddi" festival he asked his eldest daughter Varalakshmi to go and bring the deceased, Vasantha as per custom. This was some time in October, 1988. He further states that accordingly Varalakshmi, who is a married daughter, went to Visakhapatnam but on 14-10-88 a telegram was received by P.W. 1 about death of Vasantha. Now again this appears to be the singular version of P.W. 1 that eldest daughter Varalakshmi was sent for bringing Vasantha for the festival of ''Atlataddi''. What P.W. 2 the mother says on the point is that the eldest daughter had gone to Visakhapatnam to meet her relatives and casually she had asked her to extend the invitation to Vasantha to come for the festival. Thus it was not for purpose of inviting Vasantha that Varalakshmi had specifically gone. The point is very clear in her own evidence, P.W. 2 Varalakshmi states that on 12-10-88 she had gone to Visakhapatnam to BHBP area to the house of sister of her husband. She then states, "I also wanted to see my deceased sister, who was residing in Dondaparthi". It will thus be seen that she was neither asked by P.W. 1 nor by P.W. 2 to go and extend the invitation to Vasantha but it was on her own accord that she wanted to meet Vasantha as she had gone to Visakhapatnam for her other work. She then states that when she went to Vasantha''s house she stayed there on the night. According to her accused did not talk with her when she stayed there. She then states that Vasantha told her later that the accused were harassing her on the ground that the dowry was not paid in full and the wrist watch of good quality was not given. Vasantha also told the witness, as per version of P.W. 3, to convey to her parents that they should pay the amount and give a good wrist watch. Varalakshmi has not said any thing about extending any invitation to Vasantha for the festival at parents'' house. P.W. 3 then states that she went to B.H.V.P. to her sister-in-law''s house on the next day and learnt from the sister of accused No. 1 about the death of Vasantha. The evidence of P.W. 3 that she was informed about harassment by the accused on the night of 12th is highly doubtful. She admits in her cross-examination "I did not state either before the Mandal Revenue Officer or before the police about the complaint made by the deceased to me as to harassment at the hands of the accused." This admission of P.W. 3 is extremely important. She was questioned by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the police immediately after the incident and if really any complaint was made by Vasantha to her it is unimaginable that witness would have failed to state before the two officers, who made enquiry in the matter. There is also further indication that P.W. 3 is not coming out with the truth on the point. In further cross-examination it has come that in her previous statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer she had in fact stated that she observed that her sister was leading a happy life in the house of her in laws. This contradiction has been proved as Ex. D-1. Similarly before the police she has made an identical statement, which has been confronted as Ex. D-2. It appears that P.W. 3 not only failed to state about the complaint of Vasantha but in fact made a statement to the contra that Vasantha told her that she was leading a happy life. In this background the credibility value of P.W. 3''s evidence goes away. This also makes the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 highly doubtful. As pointed out already, P.W. 3 has not stood by the version that she was sent for bringing Vasantha for festival.

P.W. 3 has clearly stated in her cross examination that accused No. 2 was not present at all when she visited the house of accused. The information of death of Vasantha came on the next day when she was at her sister-in-laws''s house at BHVP some 2 Kms away.

This is the whole evidence about the so called harassment. I have discussed the evidence and pointed out the infirmities which have been created due to contradictions and irreconceivable versions given by the three witnesses. To add up to this a very important feature which has been argued by the learned advocate for the accused-appellants Sri C. Praveen Kumar must also be mentioned. It was the prosecution case that Vasantha was an illiterate woman and had sent letters about ill-treatment received by her. P.W. 1, the father of deceased, has stated at the end of his cross-examination, ''I have handed over the letters written by deceased to the police". None of those letters have been proved or produced during the trial. Obviously the inference would be adverse to the prosecution. The inference would be that had these letters been proved, they would have gone against the prosecution case.

Now I shall have a quick look at the remaining evidence, P.W. 4 is one Krishnamurthy. He was the ex-landlord of accused. The accused had stayed as a tenant for a month or so in his house. He does not say anything except that the sister of accused No. 1 informed him about the fact of dead body of Vasantha found floating in the well. He has not stated anything about any harassment seen or heard by him towards the victim. P.W. 5, Aluri Kanna Reddy was a mediator at the time of drawing of inquest-panchanama. D. J. Prakash, P.W. 6 was the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant time and he prepared the inquest panchanama in the presence of witnesses. P.W. 7, Dr. B. A. Ramakrishna, is the one who performed the postmortem and gave opinion that Vasantha died of asphyxia as a result of drowning. P.Ws. 8, 9 and 10 are the Police Officers, who had done some part or the other in the investigation. It will thus appear the evidence of these witnesses has nothing to do for proving or furthering the prosecution case on point of harassment of deceased.

On a over all view of the evidence, I am convinced that the evidence is neither here nor there to prove that any of the accused had harassed Vasantha on any ground as alleged. The evidence is totally discrepant. Moreover, the previous statement of eldest sister shows that Vasantha had in fact conveyed that she was quite happy. This would create lot of suspicion about the prosecution case even if it may not disprove the case.

In the circumstances, I find that acquittal of not only accused No. 2 was justified but conviction of accused No. 1 u/s 498-A also is totally unjustifiable. It is true that the death of Vasantha has taken place during short time after her marriage. There is an indication in the evidence that Vasantha was suffering from some disease. This has been deposed to by the Investigation Officer. P.W. 8, Asst. Sub Inspector, Viswanadhan. He has stated in the cross examination that in the course of the investigation it was revealed that the deceased had jaundice since before her marriage. Therefore, the defence of the accused that due to her disease she might have committed suicide, being fed up with it, is not totally unwaranted. It is not necessary to dilate on the causes which made Vasantha to commit suicide. The discussion made till now shows that there is lack of evidence to prove that Vasantha was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC.

As a result, the Crl. A. No. 1007 of 1991 is allowed and the accused No. 1 is acquitted of offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. The Crl. A. No. 1248 of 1991 stands dismissed.

Order accordingly.