SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Panakanti Sampath Rao
Vs
State of Andhra Pradesh
Appeal (Crl.) 946 of 2004
(Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and L. S. Panta, JJ)
18.05.2006
DR. A.R.LAKSHMANAN, J.
Heard Mr. Baijoyonta Barooah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (A-1) and Mr.P.Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.18.04.2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2003 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging his conviction under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court has converted the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment while acquitting the father and mother of the appellant (A-2 and A-3)from the convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The short facts are as follows:-
The appellant married Panakanti Kavitha. They lived together for three months
in a rented house. According to the accused, he being a medical representative
had to leave for Hyderabad on 06.08.2000 itself for official reasons. On
07.08.2000, the PW-8 pushed the door-wing of the house of Accused No.1 and
found Panakanti Kavitha lying dead by the side of the cot on the ground with
injuries in the body. On the same day, at about 7.55 p.m., P.W.-1 (the father
of the deceased) filed a complaint at Karimnagar police station. The same was
registered as a case in Cr.No.15/2000 for offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 302, 304-B IPC. The police recorded the statements of PW 3 to PW 6, PW
9, LW 14, PW 12, LW 16, PW 13 and LW 18 on 08.08.2000. A chargesheet was filed
against the appellant and his father and mother as accused No. 2 and 3 for the
offences under Section 498-A, 302, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karimnagar
registered the case as P&C No.20/01 and committed the same to the Sessions
Court, Karimnagar. The learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar upon committal,
registered the case as Sessions Case No.36/2002. The Sessions Court examined 20
witnesses and the appellant, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, were examined
under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied their involvement in the offences
alleged.
The trial court, after taking in view the evidence adduced, convicted the
appellant besides Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced each of them as follows:
"In view of the seriousness of the offence and with a view to curb the
menace of the social evil dowry, I am inclined to sentence A-1 to A-3 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine
of Rs.5, 000/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. I also
sentence A-1 to A-3 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
under Section 304-B IPC. I also sentence A-1 to A-3 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000/-
each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month each for the offence punishable U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All
the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.45,
000/- if paid, an amount of Rs.30, 000/- shall be paid to PW-2 who is the
mother of the deceased as compensation. Mos.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after
expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property [non-valuable] if any shall be
destroyed after expiry of appeal time."
Being aggrieved, the appellant, besides accused Nos. 2 and 3, filed Criminal
Appeal Nos.81 and 536 of 2003 under Section 374[2] of Cr.P.C. before the High
Court. An appeal under Section 378[3][1] Cr.P.C. was also filed being Criminal
Appeal No.536 of 2003. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
parties and after perusing the evidence on record, allowed the criminal appeal
as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned and dismissed the appeal of the
appellant (Accused No.1). The Division Bench has also allowed the appeal filed
by the State. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant (Accused No.1) has preferred
the present appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the
respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the evidence on
record and also the judgments rendered by the trial court as well as by the
High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court
is not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 498-A read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and reversing the conviction from
Section 304-B IPC to Section 302 IPC without any reason and in the face of the
overwhelming contradictions and discrepant testimony of the prosecution
witnesses who all are close relatives of the deceased and are highly interested
in conviction of the appellant more so in the presence of independent witnesses
from whom nothing substantial could be elicited and majority of them being
declared hostile. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not proved
that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before
the death, which is totally lacking in the present case. He further submitted
that the courts below overlooked the facts that the appellant was a medical
representative and was required to go on official tours and on 06.08.2000 at
about 6.00 p.m., he had to leave for Hyderabad after informing PW-10, a fact
which is substantiated in the evidence of PW-9 and 10 and that he was not at
all present at his residence when the fateful act was occurred. It is further
submitted that the courts below totally ignored the aspect of suicide and
delved into the conclusion solely relying upon the opinion of the doctor and
further erred in holding the death to be homicidal in nature inasmuch as in the
post-mortem report injury No.4 was caused at the right knee and below knee
patella being dislocated no swelling was found which clearly goes to show that
it was a case of hanging and not throttling. He also submitted that the High
Court has committed a grave mistake in convicting the appellant under Section
302 IPC.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the High Court
has come to the right conclusion after keeping in view the evidence on record
in its proper perspective and, therefore, the judgment passed by the High Court
does not call for any interference.
We have carefully gone through the judgments passed by the learned Sessions
Judge and also the High Court and perused the evidence adduced in this case.
The charge against the appellant-accused is that on 06.08.2000, the accused was
alleged to have caused the death of the deceased within seven years of marriage
by subjecting her to cruelty and harassment for more money. The case of the
prosecution has been extensively dealt with by the High Court in paragraph 5 of
its judgment. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the date of
shifting of the house by the accused at the request of the accused P.W.-1 went
to their house where A-1 (the appellant herein), in the presence of A-2 and
A-3, demanded him to pay the balance of the amount of dowry due and also to
provide extra furniture. At that time, P.W.-1 gave Rs.10, 000/- to A-1 for
purchase of extra furniture. During holidays, the deceased used to visit the
house of PW 1 and PW 2 and informed them about the demand for dowry made by the
accused. Therefore, PW-1 gave cash of Rs.70, 000/- to A-2 as agreed upon. It is
also alleged that on 06.08.2000, at about 06.08.2000 when P.W.-1 telephoned to
PW-10 to know about the welfare of the deceased, P.W.-8 the daughter of PW-10,
informed him that A-1 was not in the house and that the deceased is not
responding to her call. It is also alleged that on 07.08.2000 at about 6.00
a.m., PW-8 while collecting water from the tap called the deceased, but as
there was no response, PW-8 went to the portion of the house of the deceased
and pushed the door and the door opened and so she entered the house and found
the deceased lying on the floor by the side of her bed, and not responding to
her calls.
We have also perused the post-mortem certificate. According to P.W.-17, Civil
Asstt.Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Karimnagar who conducted the autopsy over the
dead body and issued P.11 M.E.Certificate, the cause of death was due to
asphyxia due to throttling. P.-11 M.E.certificate shows the following
injuries:-
1."Multiple minor abrasions over strnum with medial side of right
shoulder.
2.Contusions both upper arms middle 1/3 10X6 cm left upper arm.
8 cm x 6 cm right upper arm.
3.Contusions in front and around the neck;
a) Three over left side of neck, extending from upper end of thyroid cartilage
to below the left ear (6 cm)
b) Extending from Thyroid cartilage to middle of the neck, 7 cm from the
cartilage;
c) Lower end of Thyroid cartilage to left supra cuavicular region 6 1/2 cm.
b) One contusion over right side of the neck from Thyroid cartilage to right
side of cervical spine 10 x 3/4 cm.
4. Multiple minor abrasion over right knee and below the knee patella
dislocated.
5. Hyoid bone intact.
6. Rupture of right eye ball corneal traumatic. Lungs congested. Stomach
containing pinkish liquid. Liver congested."
It is the evidence of the doctor that the deceased died on account of asphyxia
due to throttling and the approximate time of death was about 30 to 42 hours
prior to his post mortem examination. The doctor further stated that it was not
a case of suicidal death, but a homicidal death.
We have carefully perused the evidence tendered by P.W.-17 (the doctor). He was
cross-examined by the counsel appearing for the accused. He has not elicited
anything from him to discredit his evidence-in-chief and the certificate issued
under Exh.P.W.-11. The doctor was of the opinion that the possibility of using
rope is ruled out and that the injury No.4 is not possible in the case of
hanging and that injury No.4 might be possible due to pressure applied either
with hand or with legs and the nails can create multiple abrasion. He also
denied the suggestions that his opinion as to asphyxia due to throttling is
incorrect and that it is a case of suicidal hanging.
As already noticed, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many
as 20 witnesses and got marked PW-1 to PW-21. The defence marked two contradictions
as Exh.D-1 and Exh.D-2. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution,
P.W.11, 12 and 13 did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared
hostile.
We have also considered the evidence tendered by the above witnesses and we are
convinced that the involvement of A-1 (the appellant herein) has been clearly
established. It is in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that A-1 and the
deceased were staying in a rented house belonging to PW-9 in Bhagyanagar
locality situated at No.2-10-1370 and the appellant and the deceased were the
only persons who were residing at the said house. The Evidence of P.W-8, the
daughter of P.W.-10, shows that on 07.08.2000 at about 6.00 a.m., PW-8 while
collecting water from the tap called the deceased, but as there was no response
PW-8 went to the portion of the deceased and pushed the door and the door was
opened and so she entered the house and found the deceased lying on the floor
by the side of her bed, and not responding to her calls. P.W.-4, the aunt of the
deceased was also residing at Karimnagar where the deceased was living clearly
stated about the harassment and cruelty by the appellant. As rightly pointed
out by the High Court, we also see no grounds or reasons to disbelieve the
evidence of P.W.4 regarding cruelty and harassment of the deceased for dowry by
the appellant.
There is ample evidence which shows that the appellant has harassed and ill-
treated the deceased for dowry and the circumstances point out that he has
caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, we find the appellant (A-1) guilty
of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The conviction and the sentence recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant for the other offences is
also confirmed and we direct that the substantive sentence shall run
concurrently. In the result, we affirm the order passed by the High Court and
dismiss the appeal.
The High Court has imposed the fine of Rs.15, 000/- on A-1 and ordered the
payment of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation to P.W.-2. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the fine imposed by the
High Court is very high and we, therefore, reduce the fine from Rs.15, 000/- to
Rs.1, 000/-. In default, he shall undergo the simple imprisonment for one week.
We place on record our appreciation in the manner in which the appeal was ably
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Baijoyonta Barooah who was
appointed as the counsel by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. We,
therefore, direct the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to pay a sum of
Rs.3, 000/- towards fees to the learned counsel for the appellant as a special
case.
The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.