DONTHULA RAVINDRANATH @ RAVINDER RAO Vs STATE OF A.P.
Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000594-000594 / 2009
Diary number: 32087 / 2007
Advocates: EJAZ MAQBOOL Vs
D. MAHESH BABU
Page 1
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 OF 2009
Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder Rao …Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2005 dated 5th
June 2007. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed
the judgment dated 8th February 2005 in Sessions Case No.23
of 2004 on the file of the V-Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court) at Nizamabad.
2. The sole appellant herein alongwith his parents was tried
for the offences under section 304B and 498A IPC. Apart from
1
Page 2
that the appellant herein was tried for an offence under
section 302 IPC simplicitor while all the three persons were
charged and tried for the offence under section 302 read with
section 109 IPC. While the sole appellant herein was
convicted for the offence under section 302 as well as section
498A IPC, the trial court did not record any finding against the
appellant herein insofar as the charge under section 304B IPC
is concerned. The other two accused were acquitted of all the
charges.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant
carried the matter in appeal to the High Court unsuccessfully.
Hence the present appeal.
4. The wife of the appellant by name Jyotsna died on 21st
May 2003. The deceased Jyotsna and the appellant married
sometime in 1998, therefore, the death of Jyotsna took place
within seven years from the date of marriage. The
prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution relied on five circumstances to establish the guilt
of the appellant herein, they are — (i) the deceased and the
appellant were wife and husband; (ii) they were living in the
2
Page 3
same house; (iii) the deceased was harassed by the appellant
for additional dowry; (iv) according to the medical evidence
though the body was allegedly found hanging it was infact a
case of strangulation; and lastly an extra-judicial confession
was made by A-1 before PW9.
5. To establish the above circumstances the prosecution
examined as many as 16 witnesses. PW1, PW2 and PW4 are
the parents and brother of the deceased respectively. PW5
and PW6 are neighbours and PW7 is a resident of the locality
who according to the prosecution saw the dead body hanging
by a lungi to the roof. PW14 is the doctor who conducted post
mortem examination on the dead body on 22.5.2003. PW15
is the Sub-Inspector of Police/Station House Officer attached to
the V-Town Police Station, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh, who
initially registered a crime under section 304B IPC on the
report (Ex.P1) made by PW1. PWs1, 2 and 4 were examined to
prove the factum of harassment for dowry by the appellant
herein. PW3 is the husband of the sister of the deceased who
was also examined for the purpose of establishing the
harassment for dowry. Their evidence remains unimpeached
3
Page 4
and both the courts below believed their version insofar as the
appellant is concerned.
6. PW7 is a resident of the locality where the appellant and
the deceased lived. According to the prosecution, he went to
the appellant’s house at 8.30 a.m. on the fateful day in order
to collect some amount due from A-1. There he found the
deceased hanging by a lungi to the roof on the first floor of the
building. With the hope of saving the life, PW7 disentangled
the dead body and laid it on the floor only to find that the lady
was already dead. Thereafter, he alongwith the help of
another person Bhumaiah (who is not examined) shifted the
dead body to the ground floor of the building.
7. According to the evidence of PW1, some unknown person
had informed by telephone on the fateful day in the morning
hours that the deceased was ill. Thereafter, PW1 passed on
the information to PW4, who was residing in the same town
(Nizamabad) as the appellant and the deceased, and asked
him to ascertain the state of affairs. Thereafter, PW1 along
with other members of the family rushed to Nizamabad only to
find the dead body of his daughter.
4
Page 5
8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there
is no iota of evidence to establish that the appellant caused
the death of Jyotsna. He submitted that even if the offence
under section 498A is proved in the absence of any clinching
evidence that the appellant caused the death of Jyotsna it
would not be safe to convict the appellant for the offence
under section 302 IPC as the requirement of criminal law is
that the prosecution must establish the guilt of accused
beyond all reasonable doubt and in a case of circumstantial
evidence the chain of circumstances is so complete that they
collectively point only to the guilt of the accused without
leaving any scope for doubt. The learned counsel made
elaborate submissions impeaching the credibility of the
evidence of PW14 the doctor who conducted the post mortem
examination. PW14 opined that the cause of death is “shock
due to asphyxia on account of strangulation”. The learned
counsel relied upon various passages from Modi’s Textbook of
Medical Jurisprudence in a bid to establish that having regard
to the nature of the external injuries on the body of the
deceased, the death of Jyotsna is a result of hanging but not
5
Page 6
strangulation thereby creating doubt about the credibility of
the prosecution case.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State
argued that the concurrent finding of fact resulting in the
conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC may not be
interfered with in the absence of any illegality in the judgment
under appeal.
10. We must at the outset state that one of the five
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the
guilt of the appellant i.e. the alleged extra-judicial confession
made by the appellant before PW9 is disbelieved by the High
Court. Therefore, only four circumstances remain, they are: (i)
the appellant and the deceased were husband and wife; and
(ii) they were living in the same house. These facts are not
even disputed by the appellant. The third circumstance relied
upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was harassed by
the appellant for additional dowry. The said circumstance is
abundantly established by the evidence of PW1 to PW4.
6
Page 7
The fourth circumstance that the death of Jyotsna in the
opinion1 of the doctor was caused by strangulation (we do not
propose to examine the correctness of the opinion) even if
believed need not, in our opinion, lead to the conclusion that it
is only the accused who must be held responsible for such
strangulation. The building in which the accused and the
deceased were living consists of four portions where others
were also living.
Even if we give the benefit of the above mentioned doubt to
the appellant, the appellant cannot escape his liability for a
charge under section 304B IPC which creates a legal fiction.
All the ingredients of section 304B are satisfied in the instant
case, that the death of Jyotsna occurred within seven years of
her marriage the death occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances and that Jyotsna was subjected to harassment
which amounted to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A
IPC of which charge the appellant is also found guilty by both
the courts below.
1 We notice from the evidence of doctor that he is of the opinion that asphyxia can occur either because of strangulation or hanging. Only by a very close scrutiny of the symptoms the exact cause of asphyxia can be identified.
7
Page 8
11. In the light of the abovementioned circumstances, the
appellant in our opinion must be found guilty for an offence
under section 304B IPC. He was infact charged at trial for the
said offence though both the courts below failed to record any
finding in this regard. The offence under section 304B IPC is
punishable with the sentence for a term which may not be less
than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant for an
offence under section 302 IPC to an offence under section
304B IPC and reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone (we are informed that the appellant is in jail for
almost a decade). He may be released forthwith if not
required in any other case. The judgment under appeal is
modified accordingly.
..………………………………….J. (RANJANA PRAKASH
DESAI)
...………………………………….J. (J. CHELAMESWAR )
New Delhi; January 06, 2014.
8