Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1630 OF 2018
SAREPALLI SREENIVAS & ORS. Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order
dated 29.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.97 of
2013.
2. Accused no.3 is stated to have expired during the pendency of this
appeal i.e. on 04.11.2020. Therefore, the proceedings in relation to accused
no.3 stand abated.
3. The basic facts leading to the initiation of prosecution against accused
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.04.08
09:52:59 IST
Reason:
persons have been set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the High
Court and for facility, we may reproduce said portion as under:
2
“i) Accused No.1 is the husband of one Sridevi (hereinafter referred
to as “the deceased”), while accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of
accused No.1 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are the married sisters-in-
law of the deceased. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, PW.2 is
the brother of the deceased and PW.3 acted as an elder, for the
marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased, which took place on
27.05.2005. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs dowry
and Rs.25,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam was paid. The
parents of the deceased also gave silver plate, silver tumbler and
silver wedding card. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 was
working as an Electrical Operator in Railways, Guntakal. After
the marriage, the deceased joined her husband in Dharmavaram,
Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. It is said that accused
No.1 and the deceased used to come to the house of PW.1 and to
the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 during first 10 days of the
marriage. For about nine months thereafter the deceased was kept
in the house of her parents. During that period, accused No.1 did
not visit the house of PW.1. It is said that prior to the said
marriage, there was an alliance to the deceased, in which the
parents agreed to give dowry of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Having come to
know about the same, the accused started demanding the deceased
to bring Rs.2.00 lakhs, thinking that there was a deposit of
Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of the deceased. Further, the family of
the deceased own a house in Rajahmundry which was named as
“Sridevi Nilayam”. Thinking that the deceased would get a share
in the house, the accused were demanding the deceased to get a
share in the said house. It is said that accused Nos.1 to 5 used to
harass the deceased to bring Rs.2.00 lakhs and also a share in the
house at Rajahmundry.
ii) The evidence on record also shows that elders including the
family members of the deceased were requesting the accused
No.1 to take back the deceased, as the mother of the deceased,
who is a widow, was not in a position to give anything more.
Thereafter, accused No.3 is said to have gone to the house to
bring back the deceased to his house. At that time, sare saman
were arranged. Accused No.3 is said to have demanded that the
sare saman should be brought and handed over to them at
Guntakal. When the same was informed to elders, they asked
accused No.3 to take the sare saman, instead of asking PW.1 to
bring them and deliver at their house. Accused No.3 took sare
saman to Guntakal along with the deceased. This incident of
accused No.3 taking back the deceased to their house took place
about five months prior to the date of incident. It appears that
accused No.2 also accompanied accused No.3 when he went to
the house of PW.1. The evidence further discloses that when
accused No.1 set up a house at Guntakal, accused Nos.2 to 4 went
to Guntakal. On the said occasion, accused Nos.2 and 4 are
alleged to have beat the deceased on the ground that she did not
bring cash of Rs.2.00 lakhs and a share in the building. The son of
PW.1 by name Sridhar, who was examined as PW.2, accompanied
3
the deceased, stayed for two days in the house of accused No.1 at
Guntakal and thereafter returned to his house. The deceased lived
with accused No.1 for five months in Guntakal. At that time,
accused No.4 was also living with accused No.1. During the said
period, the accused No.4 harassed the deceased on the ground that
she did not bring Rs.2.00 lakhs and a share in the building. The
evidence on record shows that accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 used to
harass the deceased on phone, with a demand to bring Rs.2.00
lakhs and a share in the building. On 15.08.2006 at about 4.30
a.m., PW.1 received a phone call from Ramachandra Rao (not
examined), asking her and her son PW.2 to come over to
Dharmavaram. On receipt of the said information, PWs.1,2,8 and
Prasad went to Dharmavaram to the house of accused. By the time
they reached, accused Nos.1 to 5 were sitting in the varanda of
their house. They noticed the deceased in a corner of small room,
in a standing posture, with the help of a stick kept at her waist.
After they opened the door the deceased fell down. They found
the deceased dead and her tongue protruding out of the mouth.
They also noticed bleeding from nose. The deceased was wearing
a jacket and without any saree and a petty coat. They found burn
injuries on the private parts and also on the face. The accused
were pretending that the deceased committed suicide by pouring
kerosene on her and setting herself on fire. Immediately
thereafter, ie., on 15.08.2016 PW.1 lodged a report with PW.12-
the Sub-Inspector of Police, which came to be registered as Crime
No.80 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B
IPC. Ex.P1 is the report and Ex.P8 is the first information report.
PW.12 handed over the investigation to S.D.P.O., Kovvur. As per
the instructions of S.D.P.O., Kovvuru, PW.12 gave a requisition to
PW.11-the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kovvur, to conduct inquest
over the dead body of the deceased.
iii) PW.13-the S.D.P.O., Kovvur Sub-Division, after collecting copy
of the first information report, proceeded to the scene of offence
ie., house of accused No.3, bearing Door No.2-2 (2) in
Dharmavaram Village. He observed the scene of offence in the
presence of PW.9 and others and got prepared a scene of offence
panchanama. During scene observation, he seized MOs. 6 to 10
from the scene. Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. He
also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on
record as Ex.P10. He got the scene of offence photographed
through one Srinivasa Rao, which are placed on record as Ex.P9.
On the same day at about 1.30 to 3.30 p.m., PW.11-the Mandal
Revenue Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body of the
deceased in the presence of PW.9 and another. Ex.P6 is the
inquest report. During inquest, he examined Pws.1 to 3 and
others. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem
examination.
iv) PW.10-the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre,
Kovvur, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P7-
4
postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was
“due to cardio respiratory failure due to shock and asphyxia due to
smothering”. He also observed that the burn injuries on the body
are postmortem burn injuries. On the same day PW.13 arrested
accused Nos.1 to 5 at the house of accused No.3 and brought them
to police station. After receipt of the postmortem report, the
section of law was altered from 304-B to 302, 498-A and 201
IPC. After completing the examination of all the witnesses and
after collecting all the documents, PW.13 filed a charge sheet
before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Kovvur, who inturn committed the case to the Sessions
Division under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., wherein it came to be
numbered as S.C.No.1 of 2007.”
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, PWs 1,
2 and 3 being the witnesses pertaining to dowry related harassment meted
out to the deceased. According to PW1 - mother of the deceased, at the time
of marriage, cash in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) was
given by way of dowry and Rs.25,000/- were given to the sisters of accused
no.1 – husband. Certain jewellery and other items were also given at the
time of marriage. The mother also deposed about the harassment narrated by
the deceased and the demands made by accused no.1 – husband.
The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing substantial
could be elicited from her cross-examination.
4. PW2 - brother of the deceased reiterated the basic factual parts
deposed to by PW1 – mother. The witness also stated about dowry related
harassments faced by the deceased. His cross-examination also did not lead
to anything substantial to discredit the testimony of the witness.
5
5 PW3 - co-brother of accused no.3 also supported the case of the
prosecution and deposed about the demands and harassment.
6. PW4 – a neighbour deposed that on the intervening night of
15.08.2006, he had heard shouts and cries coming from the house of accused
no.3 and next day morning it was stated by the accused that the deceased had
died of burn injuries.
7. The medical evidence on record is quite clear that the deceased was
strangulated first and after the life was extinguished, the body was subjected
to post-mortem burn injuries.
8. Considering the entirety of material on record, the Trial Court
convicted all five accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302,
498A, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and
sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment as substantive sentence under
Section 302 IPC with other sentences for subsidiary offences.
9. The appeal preferred by the convicted accused was dealt with by the
High Court vide its judgment and order presently under challenge. The High
Court found that the case against the husband and the parents-in-law of the
deceased was clearly made out while two sisters of the husband, who were
ordinarily not residing at the same place, were entitled to benefit of doubt.
Granting such benefit to accused nos.4 and 5, the High Court acquitted them
6
of all the charges but affirmed the conviction and sentences recorded against
accused nos.1 to 3.
10. In this appeal, we have heard Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, learned
Advocate for the appellants, and Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned
Advocate for the State.
11. The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased was done to
death by strangulation and thereafter an attempt was made to camouflage the
death as one which arose out of burn injuries. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and
3 is quite consistent, cogent and firmly establishes not only the demands for
dowry but dowry related harassments that the deceased was subjected to.
12. Considering the entirety of material on record, in our view, it is not
possible to take a different view than the one that weighed with the Courts
below. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
13. It must also be stated that accused no.2 – mother-in-law was given the
facility of bail considering her medical condition.
14. We, therefore, direct:
a. Accused no.2 shall surrender within seven days from today,
failing which the bail-bonds furnished at the time of her release
on bail shall stand forfeited and accused no.2 shall be taken in
7
custody forthwith.
b. Since accused no.2 has certain medical issues, we direct the Jail
Authorities to extend to accused no.2 all medical facilities.
c. The accused shall undergo the sentences awarded to them.
15. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
…………………………………………….J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…………………………………………….J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
…………………………………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi;
April 06, 2022