TUMMALA VENKATESWAR RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 17-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 17 S.C.R. 573 
TUMMALA VENKATESWAR RAO 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
. (Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 2011) 
DECEMBER 17, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- s.3048 - Dowry death - Conviction c' 
of appellant-husband - Justification - Held: On. facts, justified 
- Evidence that not only the, appellant made demand of dowry 
alongwith other accused'l)ut that he specifically and 
individually also made such demand - Appellant entrusted 
the deceased the work.of servant maid and used to beat her 
for dowry - Sufficient evidenc~, to hold that deceased was 
D 
subjected to cruelty and harassment by appellant in 
connection with demand for dowry soon before her death·-
Moreover, no exculpatory evidence led in defence so as to 
rebut the presumption enacted bys. 113-8 of the Evidence Act 
- Evidence Act, 1872. 
E 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Term "soon before her 
death" - Meaning of. 
The appellant's wife died due to consumption of a 
poisonous substance. The Courts below convicted the 
F 
appellant under Section 304-8 IPC and sentenced him to 
7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for causing dowry death 
of the deceased, and hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court . 
G 
HELD: 1. There is evidence that not only, the 
' 
appellant made a demand of Rs. 2,00,0001- along with 
other accused but that the accused specifically and 
573 
1-l, 
574 
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A individually made demand for dowry. In his deposition, 
PW-1 - father of the deceased, stated that the deceased 
had informed that the appellant used to beat her for 
dowry when the deceased first went to cohabit with him 
after five months. Even after her return to matrimonial 
B house for the second time, he deposed that on 
23.10.2003 when he went to invite the appellant and his 
daughter for Diwali Festival all the accused asked him to 
take away his daughter as he did not pay the dowry and 
they wanted to perform marriage of the appellant with 
c another lady. The father (PW1) has specifically stated that 
the appellant himself did not accept the invitation but 
asked him to send his daughter with cash. It is soon 
thereafter that the deceased expressed her intention to 
commit suicide since she came back alone narrating the 
harassment made by the accus:"d. There is similar 
D evidence in the depositions of PW-3, the sister of the 
deceased, who has deposed that the deceased 
expressed her grief that her husband did not come for 
Diwali for want of Rs.2,00,000/-. Whereupon, the deceased 
wept and expressed her intention not to live. PW-5- the 
E maternal uncle of the deceased, has also deposed that 
the deceased informed that A1-appellant continued to 
demand dowry. These specific allegations in respect of 
the demand by the appellant are apart from the various 
statements of the witnesses that the accused, which term 
F include the appellant, harassed her even when she went 
to cohabit for the first time. The appellant entrusted her 
the work of servant maid and he used to beat her for 
dowry. In fact, the accused informed the family of the 
deceased their intention to marry another lady for higher 
G dowry. In view of the beating and humiliation meted out 
by the appellant, this Court is satisfied that the deceased 
was harassed and treated with cruelty in connection with 
a demand for dowry. [Para 3] [577-8-H; 578-A] 
H 
2. The term "soon before her death" in Section 3048 
TUMMALA VENKATESWAR RAO v. STATE OF 
575 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
IPC has been employed by Parliament to refer to cruelty A 
or harassment which was meted out in proximity to the 
death that has to be considered as the cause of the 
death. The provision does not employ the term "at any 
time before" nor "immediately before" and must be 
construed according to its true import. In the present B 
case, there is sufficient evidence to hold that the 
deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment 
by her husband in connection with demand for dowry 
soon before her death. Moreover, no exculpatory 
evidence has been led in defence so as to rebut the C 
presumption enacted by Section 113-8 of the Indian 
Evidence Act, 1872. (Paras 9, 11 & 13] [581-8-C; 581-D; 
582-8-C] 
Kai/ash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006) 12 SCC 
667: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 45 and Hira Lal vs. State (Govt. 
D 
of NCT}, Delhi (2003) 8 sec 80: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 734 
- relied on. 
Case Law Reference : 
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 45 
2003 (1) Suppl. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.