Full Judgment
1. Appellant is the sole accused. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304B of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in SC No.135 of 1993 on 18-2-1994, this appeal is preferred.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased who is aged about 19 years is daughter of PW1. The appellant/accused is resident of adjacent street in the same locality, and he fell in love with the deceased, which resulted in their marriage, about six months prior to the date of offence against the will and consent of parents of the deceased. While so, the deceased informed her mother (PW1) when they met each other at a 'jatara' that the accused asked her (deceased) to fell in the well and die, so that he can re-marry and get Rs.30,000/- towards dowry. PWFs husband brought the deceased to his house for 'Ashadam'. On 1-7-1990 at about 10-00 AM., the accused and the deceased went to the terrace of the house; at that time, PW2 who is the sister of the deceased went there; the accused asked PW2 to bring some 'borugulu'. After bringing and giving them to the accused and deceased, PW2 went away from the terrace. After some time, PW1 saw her daughter (deceased) vomiting and froath was coming out of her mouth. When the deceased was asked as to what happened, she told that the accused forcibly poured pesticide saying as tonic. PW9 who was passing on that way came there and with his assistance, PW1 and accused took her to Government Hospital, Punganur, where she died at 2-40 p.m.. A case in Crime No.96/90 under Section 307 IPC was registered at the first instance and later it was altered to Section 302 IPC after the death of the deceased.
3. A charge under Section 304-B IPC has been framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P12 and MOs.1 to 8. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the defence, but Ex.Dl to Ex.D3 are marked.
5. On evaluation of the evidence and material on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC and convicted and sentenced him thereto as mentioned supra. Hence this appeal.
6. The point for consideration is, whether the trial Court has erred in appreciating the entire evidence and material on record and in finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the accused was not at all present at the scene of offence and he was falsely implicated in this case because of his marriage with the deceased was against the will and consent of her parents. It was a case of suicide because of the provocation by the parents of deceased, since she married the accused without the knowledge of her parents and against their will and consent.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the guilt of the accused was brought home mainly on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4,7, 8 and 9 who are the important and material witnesses: PW1 is the mother of the deceased, PW2 is the sister of the deceased, PW4 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, PWs.7 and 8 are the doctors and PW9 is the person who took the deceased to the hospital along with PW1.
9. The substance of the deposition of PWI in the examination in chief is that she was informed by her deceased daughter in a 'jatara' that the accused was demanding Rs.30,000/- and that the accused asked her to fell in the well, so that, he can marryagain. On the date of offence, the deceased was eating roasted paddy(borugulu) along with the accused. She went to the shop for purchasing and by the time she returned to the house, she noticed her daughter (deceased) vomiting froath and when the accused asked the deceased as to who administered the poison, the deceased said that the accused alone did it. By this statement, it appears that PW1 wanted to prove that the accused was demanding dowry and was torturing the deceased and only to eliminate her, the accused administered the pesticide poison (Endrine). But in the cross-examination, she admits that the marriage of the accused with the deceased was against their will and consent. Till the month of 'Ashadam', neither the deceased nor the accused visited their house. Since the date of their marriage, these two families were not in talking terms. She specifically stated that the accused married the deceased without asking for any dowry. She further states that her husband had taken the deceased to their house for 'Ashadam.' It is to be noted that she did not say specifically that both the deceased and the accused were brought together to their house for 'Ashadam'. These facts goes to show that two families' viz., the accused's family and his in-laws' family were not in talking terms. Therefore, it is highly improbable for the parents to bring the daughter to their house for 'Ashadam', particularly, when she says that till that time both the families never met each other. Even assuming that out of the affection, the parents brought the deceased to their house in the 'Ashadam', it is further improbable to invite the son-in-law to their house in the month of 'Ashadam' along with their daughter. When PW1 and her family were so traditional they would not in normal course allow the son-in-law to come to their house in the month of 'Ashadam', nor the son-in-law would go to the in-laws place. So, the behavior of son-in-law, as per the narration of PW1, in going to the in-laws place in the month of 'Ashadam' is unnatural and therefore the same cannot be believed at least to the extent that the accused was present in their house onthe date of offence. It is very important to note that in the statement made by PW1 to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC (marked as Ex.Dl) which was the earliest occasion for her to make any statement in this regard, she states 'then my son-in-law was not in the house'. The contradiction with regard to the presence of the accused on that day at the scene of offence is very vital in this case. Obviously, the statement made by her before the Court is an improvement. She further states in her examination in chief that after the poison was administered to the deceased;' PW9 by name Sadanandam who was passing through that way came and PW1 along with PW9 and the accused shifted the deceased to the hospital. PW9 in his examination in chief specifically states that himself and PW1 took the deceased to the hospital for treatment. But in his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC marked as Ex.D3, PW9 stated that he went to the hospital along with the husband of the deceased and PW1. These contradictory statements of PWs.1 and 9 would not help the prosecution in proving their case beyond any reasonable doubt. The only consistent fact spoken by these two witnesses is that the deceased was taken to the hospital only and regarding the fact of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence on that particular day and accompanying the deceased along with PW1 to the hospital is totally doubtful in view of the contradictory statements made by PWs.1 and 9, and therefore, in my view, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused was present in the house of PW1 and was present at the scene of offence.
10. Even assuming that the accused was present at the house of parents of the deceased, as per the evidence of PW2, sister of the deceased, the accused asked her to bring 'borugulu' and she purchased them and consumed them along with the accused and the deceased. In the cross-examination, she further states that both the accused and the deceased were in happy mood whileeating 'borugulu' and that there was no exchange of words or assault in her presence by the accused against the deceased. Curiously, this witness was examined on the third day of the incident. Her evidence also is not at all useful to the prosecution for the reasons that; firstly, she was not initially examined but was examined only on the third day after the incident and secondly, she spoke to the effect that the accused and the deceased were in happy mood. Therefore, for the purpose of proving the demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the accused against the deceased, the testimony of PW2 is not only doubtful but also another contradiction with the statements of PWs.1 and 9 in their depositions read with their statements made under Section 161 Cr.PC.
11. PW4 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He states in his cross-examination that PW1 did not state that the accused will get Rs.30,000/- if he marries second time towards dowry; none of the witnesses informed him that they have seen the accused forcibly administering the pesticide into the mouth of the deceased and further none of them stated before him that the accused and his-wife were quarrelling with each other. Though this witness is not an eye-witness, his deposition reveals the fact that nothing incriminating against the accused was spoken before him by PW1 and other witnesses.
12. PW7 who is the doctor who examined the deceased states that 'the persons came alongwith the patient have told him that the patient (deceased) has consumed endrine'. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that even according to this witness, she was only informed that the deceased consumed pesticide. If really, the pesticide was administered by the accused, the persons who accompanied the deceased would have told the doctor that she was administered with pesticide. This is another factor that can be taken intoaccount that PWs. 1 and 9 who admittedly accompanied the deceased to the hospital did not say about the involvement of the deceased. But on the contrary, the apparent stand was that the deceased herself consumed pesticide. If that be the case, it would only support the case of the defence, namely, the deceased having been provoked by somebody at her residence, she consumed pesticide on her own.
13. PWS who is the Deputy Civil Surgeon and who assisted PW7 in conducting post mortem examination states in his cross-examination that it is not possible to administer poison to an adult without the consent and no injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. In the re-examination, he asserts that it is not easy to administer the poison to a wife without her consent. This statement supports the statement of PW7, the other doctor who said that the pesticide which was alleged to have been administered to the deceased would emit untolerable smell if the bottle is opened. In such a case, pesticide like endrine can be consumed by a person only under two circumstances; firstly, the consumption must have been on ones own, knowing that it was a poisonous liquid with such untolerable smell, and secondly, such a pesticide can be administered to a person only by force. Force automatically will be followed by some amount of resistance either by crying loudly or resisting physically which would result in atleast some minor injuries on the bodies of the accused as well as the deceased. No such traces are found on the body of the deceased as deposed by PWs.7 and 8. Under these circumstances also, the statement of PW1 to the effect that the accused forcibly administered the pesticide to the deceased cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the same cannot be believed. On the other hand, the above circumstances would only reveal that the death of the deceased is only a suicidal but not homicidal and attributable to the accused, probably because of the fact that the accused and the deceased married each other much against the will and consent ofher parents. Therefore, on this ground also benefit of doubt has to be given to theaccused.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view on a survey of overall circumstances as put forth by the prosecution witnesses mainly PW1, that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I hold that the judgment of the trial Court on the reasoning given therein cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be set aside.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused and he is acquitted for the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.