HYDERABAD: In a significant judgment, a division bench of Telangana High Court has set aside the order of the fast-track court (FTC) at Medak which acquitted all the accused in an alleged dowry death case.
The bench convicted all the three accused — Duddala Santosh, Balamani and Narsimlu in the case and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Death of the victim was closely related to dowry demand as the witnesses have claimed that the demand for additional dowry was made one month prior to the incident and therefore, the element of “soon before the death” exists in the present case, the bench opined.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A Abhishek Reddy, has recently allowed the appeal filed by Talari Krishna, brother of the deceased woman, challenging the order of the III Additional district and sessions judge (fast-track court) at Medak and seeking to punish the accused.
The case of the prosecution is that the victim Bhagyalaxmi was married to D Santosh (A1), a private employee, in May 2010.
At the time of marriage, some land, gold and cash was given as dowry. After the marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws, who demanded additional dowry.
After coming to know of the harassment, her mother went to the in-laws house and pleaded not to harass her daughter who was pregnant and promised to give one tola gold at the time of performing ‘Srimantham’. On September 15, 2011, the family members were informed about her death and when they visited the in-laws house they found that she died under suspicious circumstances.
The police registered a case based on the complaint lodged by the victim’s brother alleging that his sister had died due to harassment for additional dowry, and urged action against the three accused -- victim’s husband Santosh (A1), in-laws Balamani (A2) and Narsimlu (A3). FIRs were registered for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 304-B (dowry death). On January 23, 2013, the trial court after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused.
The counsel for appellant contended that the trial court had acquitted all the accused despite existence of essential ingredients in the case. Besides, the trial court had accepted minor contradictions as major ones, and had disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses - all close relatives of the deceased, and termed the testimonies as vague, counsel added.
On the other hand, the counsel for accused-respondents stated that, “The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are general and vague in their contents. Since the dowry demand was made one month prior to the death, it is not ‘soon before the death’.” As for the allegation of harassment for additional dowry, they have not narrated a single instance regarding physical and mental cruelties, the counsel added.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the bench said that the testimony clearly reveals that dowry was given to the accused at the time of marriage, but the accused started demanding additional dowry after a few months. The victim had died within seven months of her marriage.
The demand for additional gold was made one month prior to her death. Hence, the ingredients required for offence under Section 304-B IPC has been established by the prosecution. Once the factual foundation was laid by the prosecution, the trial court was required to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
It has ignored the evidence readily available on record and has erred in not applying the well-settled principles for assessing the evidence in a proper perspective.
The lower court has failed to do so and its order clearly reveals that it has been persuaded by minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses with regard to amount of dowry paid at the time of marriage.
The trial court should have realised that minor contradictions with regard to ‘value of an article’ are part of human nature.
The bench allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of trial court. While sentencing the accused to seven years rigorous imprisonment, the bench directed them to pay a fine of `20,000 each.