Holding

The conviction under Section 498A IPC is justified as the evidence establishes cruelty and dowry harassment by the appellant, leading to the wife's suicide.

Summary

Undavalli Narayana Rao was convicted under Section 498A of the IPC for subjecting his wife, Malathi Devi, to cruelty and dowry harassment that allegedly drove her to suicide. The trial court found that the husband and his mother repeatedly demanded property, threatened the wife, and forced her to alienate land, leading to her death by hanging, which was corroborated by independent witnesses and the hurried cremation without an autopsy. The minor daughter’s testimony was deemed a tutored witness, and the delay in filing the complaint was explained by the parties’ attempts at settlement. The High Court affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court upheld it, holding that the evidence satisfied the statutory elements of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment were upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the death of the wife was a suicide caused by the appellant's conduct or a natural death.
Whether the minor daughter's testimony could be relied upon or was a tutored witness.
Whether the delay in filing the criminal complaint defeats the prosecution's case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498A

Subjects

dowry harassmentcrueltySection 498Asuicidedomestic violencetutored witnessconviction

Judgment

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 660

A UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO ..
~

v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2004)
JULY 24, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.]

\-
.
Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A - Wife committing suicide
c - Conviction of a9cused-husband under s. 498A -
Justification of - Held: The conviction was justified - There
was coercive harassment and torture for dowry - No attempt
was made by husband or mother-in-law to inform family
members of deceased about the death - Dead body was
D hurriedly cremated Without any autopsy having been
conducted - No medical evidence was led by defence to ,4...~

establish their claim that wife was ailing from before and died
of natural death - Delay in launching criminal prosecution
was explained by prosecution - Minor child of accused
E deposed falsely to save her father and other family members
and she was merely a "tutored witness" - No cogent reason
to take a view contrary to the one taken by the courts below.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was a
habitual drunkard who continuously harassed his wife
F and subjected her to mental and physical torture for more ~

dowry, which forced her to commit suicide. The appellant
was convicted by the Courts below under section 498A
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
2 years.
G
The conviction of appellant was challenged before
this Court on grounds that the appellant's wife died of a ~ -,.
natural death resulting from stomach ache; that in this
regard the Courts below erred in disbelieving DW1, the
H 660
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 661

minor daughter of appellant, who deposed in favour of A
the appellant; that pursuant to execution of an agreement
between the parties, there was no complaint either of
harassment or cruelty; that no demand had ever been
made for dowry and that there was inordinate delay in
lodging the criminal case by family of the deceased. B
Hence the present appeal.

- -of
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Cruelty has been °def.ined by the explanation
added to Section 498A IPC itself; The bas.ic ingredients 0
c
of Section 498A are cruelty and har~ss,ment. The charge
" 0 0 • .

under Section 498A can be broughf home if the essential
ingredients either ·in ·~lause. (a), {rr (b) ci'r both are found
0

0

duly established. [PC'll"a 11} [669-C-D,, H; 670-A]
, " 0 •'

D
.... ~ S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani AIR 1999 SC 1318;
V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710; Mohd.
Hoshan v. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 414; Smt. Raj Rani v.
State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2000 SC 3559; Sushi/
Kumar Sharma v. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3100 and
E
• GirdharShankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC
2078, referred to.

2.1. In the instant case, it is evident from the evidence
,;,
on record that dowry passed on to the appellant
consisting of Rs.50,000/- cash, Ac.3.00 of wet land and F
Ac.6-00 of mango tope along with 50 tolas of gold and 2
kgs. of silver. It is also revealed in the evidence on record,
that after about two years of the marriage, the deceased
was being harassed by the appellant as well as by his
mother. There was a demand that the property in her G
name be sold and deceased should bring more money
..., ,I-
from her parents. The deceased was beaten by the
appellant and was forced out of the house. The deceased
complained to her mother and other family members that
the appellant was always drunk and ill-treated her. H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

...
~

A However, by the intervention of the elder members of the
community, the matter was resolved and an agreement
dated 14.3.1990 was executed to the effect that the
immovable properties owned by the husband and wife
would be preserved for their children and none of them
B would alienate any part of any property in their names.
However, they would have a right to enjoy its usufruct.
After sometime, the appellant and his mother started
pressurising the deceased to alienate the land in
contravention of the said agreement and she should
...
..
c bring money from her parents. The appellant's mother
also threatened the deceased that in case she did not
agree for the said transfer of land, she would remarry her
son with another girl. The deceased left her matrimonial
home, however she was taken back by her family
members and in consultation with the family members of
D
the appellant and by intervention of certain other persons, ;... ...
the dispute was pacified. It was resolved that there would
be no quarrel in future. Subsequently, when the family
members of the deceased had gone to Hyderabad, she
was found dead and next day she was cremated hurriedly
E without being subjected to any post mortem autopsy and •
without any information to her family members. When the
family members of the deceased came and met the
appellant, his mother and other family members
attempted to resolve the dispute, and not to report the
F matter to the police and for that consideration, the
'
appellant and his mother agreed to transfer the
immovable property of the appellant in the name of the
only child of the deceased. As a consequence Ex.P.2
dated 15th June, 1999 was executed and registered
G purporting to be a partition deed between the appellant
and his minor daughter DW.1. According to the said ,I, ,.,.
partition deed about Ac.11.69 cents land was given to the
daughter. After sometime, it came to the knowledge of the
family members of the deceased that the child was not
H
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF AP. 663

being treated properly, therefore, they approached the A
appellant's family and made an attempt to take the child
in their custody but the appellant did not agree for it.
Thus, the mother of the deceased filed the criminal
complaint and in exercise of the power under Section
156(3) CrPC, the court directed for investigation. [Para 19] B
[672-D-H; 673-A-G]

2.2. The Trial Court was fully satisfied with the
·j explanation for delay in launching the criminal
prosecution. Admittedly there was a delay of about 2 C
months but it was fully explained by the witnesses

- particularly, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 8 that the appellant had
transferred the land in the name of the minor child and
as agreed upon, no criminal case was to be filed.
Subsequently, when the appellant and his m.other did not
take care of the child properly, the complaint was filed. D
There is evidence on record that legal proceedings had
also been initiated by the family members of the deceased
seeking custody of the child. A civil suit was also filed to
restrain the appellant from transferring the immovable
property in favour of any other person by any means. E
[Para 20] [673-G-H; 674-t·C]

2.3. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that DW.1,
the only child of the-appellant and deceased, deposed
falsely to save her father and other family members and F
she was merely a "tutored witness". There were other
circumstances that the child was in bed with her grand
mother, and not with her mother, when the deceased
was allegedly complaining of a stomach ache. No medical
evidence was led to establish that the deceased was G
ailing so seriously from before. [Para 21]' [674-C-E]

2.4. The independent witnesses deposed that when
they came to know that the appellant's wife had died,
they reached the place of occurrence and witnessed that
the room in which her dead body was found, had been H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A opened by lifting the lever from inside. The body of the
deceased was in a sitting posture on a double cot on her
knees, and hanging from a fan tied with a sari. It was,
therefore, inferred that it was a case of suicide as
otherwise, there was no occasion to bolt the room from
B inside. [Para 22] (674-E-G]

2.5. Taking into consideration various other
circumstances, particularly, the agreement dated
14.3.1990, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the --
relations between the husband and the wife were not
c cordial, and that she had been harassed to meet the
unlawful demand of the appellant as he wanted to
dispose of the immovable property ~nd compel the
deceased to fetch more money from her parents. The
execution of the deed dated 15.6.1999 {Ex.P.1) was
D enough to show that it had been executed in order to
restrain the family members of the deceased to launch
criminal prosecution against the appellant. The Court also
took other circumstances into account, that the death of
the appellant's wife was in the house of the appellant;
E neither the appellant nor his mother made any attempt to
inform the family members of the deceased about the
death; her dead body had been cremated hurriedly
without any autopsy having been conducted; there were
independent witnesses like PW5 etc. and came to the
F conclusion that she had been harassed/coerced to the
extent that deceased committed suicide. The court rightly
found the charge under Section 498-A fully proved
against the appellant. [Para 23] (674-G-H; 675-A-C]

G 3. The High Court after appreciating the entire
evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the
Trial Court. There is no cogent reason to take a view
contrary to the one taken by the courts below. [Para 24]
(675-D]

H
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF AP. 665

"'·...
Case Law Reference: A

AIR 1999 SC 1318 referred to Para 12
AIR 1994 SC 710 referred to Para 13
(2002) 1 sec 414 referred to Para 14 B
AIR 2000 SC 3559 referred to Para 15

-- ·</
AIR 2005 SC 3100
AIR 2002 SC 2078
referred to
referred to
Para 16
Para 17
-~ • c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 594 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.10.2003 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
1692 of 2001. D
-....i
ATM Rang Ramanujam, Anu Gupta, Gouri Karuna Das,
Rani Jethmalani for the Appellant.

D. Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy, V. Prabhakar E
- Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
~ against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2003 passed by F
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1692 of 2001 and 711 of 2002 whereby the High
Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions
Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry dated
31.10.2001 in S.C. No.1 of 2000 whereunder the appellant has G
been convicted for the offence under Section 498A Indian Penal
Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two
"' J
years.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A are that a, private complaint was filed by Undavilli Veerayamma, .J -
PW.1/ complainant against the appellant Undavalli Narayan
Rao - the husband, and Undavalli Veerayamma @ Vijjamma -
the mother-in-law of the deceased, Malathi Devi. Both of them
are alleged to have harassed the deceased for more dowry and
B due to the strained relationship between the deceased and
appellant, an agreement (Khararunama) was executed,
restraining the appellant from dealing with or alienating the
properties mentioned in the said "Khararunama". Subsequent
__,_____
to the execution of said "Khararunama" the deceased restored "
c marital relations with the appellant and they lived together for ••
nine years. During this period the deceased persistently J

complained about the behaviour of the appellant and his
mother, to her mother Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1 and
other relatives and the continuation of harassment at the hands
of the appellant and his mother.
D
l<-~
3. It is alleged that the appellant killed his wife on 5.6.1999
and stage managed a hanging to show that the deceased
committed suicide. Her dead body was hurriedly cremated with
the assistance of co-accused Manyan Narayan Rao, Valluri
E Gangadhar Rao and Chillikuri Rajasekhara Rao without
informing the parents of the deceased who were away at
Hyderabad and it was also alleged that the close relatives of
-
the deceased objected to the cremation but despite their
objections, the deceased was cremated.
'I
F
4. After arrival of the parents of the deceased, a dispute
arose and when the mother of the deceased Smt. Undavilli
Veerayamma PW.1 was about to file a criminal case against
the accused persons, a mediator attempted conciliation
between the parties, as a result whereof some land was parted
G
with through a registered document by the appellant in favour
of the minor child of the deceased as a consideration for not
filing a criminal case. However, subsequently the appellant
~ ~ ..
refused to allow the minor child to be with her maternal grand
parents. Thereafter Smt. Undavilli Veerayamma PW.1
H
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF AP. 667
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
\. A
approached the Police Station for registering an FIR and since
there was abnormal delay, the police refused-to register the
case as a result of which she filed a private complaint, on the
basis of which P.R.C.27/99 before the Additional J.F.C.
Magistrate, Peddapuram came to the Court for trial.
B
5. After committal, the case was proceeded with. Charges

.. ~
under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the appellant and
his mother, and under Section 201 IPC against all the five
accused were framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.
During the course of the trial, the Public Prosecutor prayed for
framing of an additional charge under Section 498A IPC, which
c
was accordingly framed against the appellant and his mother.

6. To prove the prosecution case against the accused, 11
witnesses were examined. Upon a full scale trial, the trial court
came to the conclusion that the charges under Section 302 D
... ) read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant, his mother or
any other co-accused were not made out. The appellant alone
was found guilty and convicted for the offence unqer Section
498A IPC, and was awarded a sentence of R.I. for two years
vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2001. The trial against E
co-accused Manyan Narayan Rao abated due to his death
during the pendency of the case.

7. Aggrieved by the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial
~ Court for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the appellant
F
preferred Criminal Appeal No.1612 of 2001. The State
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 2002 against the acquittal
in respect of all the other charges levelled against the appellant
and others. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated
22.10.2003 affirmed the judgment and order dated 31.10.2001
passed by the trial court i.e. dismissed both the appeals. The G
..,, ~ State has not challenged the judgment and order of the High
Court passed in its appeal. It is only the appellant who has filed
this appeal against the conviction and sentence as affirmed by
the High Court limited to the charge under Section 498A IPC.
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

f'
A 8. Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 498A
IPC against the appellant. The courts below have erred in
disbelieving Chy Undavalli Nanda Anuradha Sai Krishna DW.1
B the daughter of the appellant, and also the other witnesses on
the issue that appellant's wife died of a natural death resulting
from a stomach ache. After execution of an agreement dated
14.3.1990 there was no complaint either of harassment or ~

\>
cruelty; no demand had ever been made for dowry. There was
c inordinate delay in lodging the criminal case by the family of
the deceased. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

9. On the contrary, Shri D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the
contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the
D appellant and contended that both the courts below rightly
disbelieved the daughter of the appellant who was merely a Jo-·'

child of 8~ years labeling her as a "tutored witness". From the
date of marriage till her death, the wife had been continuously
harassed and subjected to mental and physical torture by the
E appellant. The appellant was a habitual drunkard and
misbehaved with his wife, which forced her to commit suicide.
Therefore, the appeal has no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

F 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by -oj

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. The provisions of Section 498A IPC read as under :

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
G subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for t - ..
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
H
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF AP. 669
[DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.)

·- ..,,
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section 'cruelty' A
means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
8
(whether mental or physical) of the woman;

- ~
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her to any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her c
or any person related to her to meet such demand."

Cruelty has been defined by the explanation added to the
Section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A l.P.C. are
cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as.
0
clause (a) is concerned, have been classified as follows:
-.~

(i) any 'wilful' conduet which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide; or

(ii) any 'wilful' conduct which is likely to cause grave injury E
to the woman; or

(iii) any 'wilful' act which is likely to cause danger to life,
limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman.
\.-
For the purpose of clause (b) the essential ingredients are F
as under:

(I) The harassment of a married woman

(II) With a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry or for G
any property or valuable security or on account of
-#~ 4
her failure or failure of any person related to her to
meet such a demand.

Therefore, it is evident that the charge under Section 498A H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A can be brought home if the essential ingredients either in clause r
(a) or (b) or both are found duly established.

12. In S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, AIR 1999 SC
1318, this Court considered the meaning of cruelty in the
context of the provisions under Section13 of the Hindu Marriage
B Act, 1955 and observed that :

c
"mental cruelty broadly means, when either party
causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude
that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and
as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party
It -
who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words,
the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live
with the other party."

13. In V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, this
D
court, while dealing with the issue of cruelty in the context of
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, observed as under : )<A'

"17 ....... .It is not necessary to prove that the mental
cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the
E petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must
be had to the social status, educational level of the parties,
the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the
parties ever living together in case they are already living
apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which
F it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. y

What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in
another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case
having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.
If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must
G also be had to the context in which they were made ...........
The context and the set up in which the word 'cruelty' has
been used in the section seems to us, that intention is not ~ "•
necessary element in cruelty. That word has to be
understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial
H affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 671
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act A
complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the
absence of intention should not make any difference in the
case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act
complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty."
B
14. In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414,
this Court wt1ile dealing with the similar issue held that mental
or physical torture should be "continuously" practiced by the
accused on the wife. The Court further observed as under :

"Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the C
other is essentially a question of fact. The impart of
complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting
to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of
the individual victim concerned, the social background, the
environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies D
from person to person depending on the intensity of
se.nsitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to
withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case
has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the
mental cruelty was established or not." E

15. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR
2000 SC 3559, this Court .held that while considering the case
of cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498A l.P.C.,
the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be F
of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

16. In Sushi/ Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2005
SC 3100, this Court explained the distinction of cruelty as
provided under Section 306 and 498A IPC observing that under G
Section 498A cruelty committed by the husband or his relation
drive woman to commit suicide etc. while under Section 306
IPC, suicide is abetted and intended. Therefore, there is a
basic difference of the intention in application of the said
provisions H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A 17. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra,
.r
AIR 2002 SC 2078; this Court held that "cruelty" has to be
understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in
·, Section 498A l.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous
state of affairs of torture by one to another. In explanation "b",
s there is absence of physical injury but it includes coercive
harassment for demand of dowry etc. therefore the aforesaid
provisions deal with patent and latent acts of the husband or
his family members. But both are equally serious in terms of
the provisions of the statute.
c 18. Provisions of Section 498A IPC were introduced by
an amendment to curb the harassment of a woman by her
husband and/or his family members, for demand of dowry etc.
under the garb of fulfillment of the customary obligations.

D 19.!Tihe instant case is required to be examined in the light
of the settled legal propositions. The appellant was married to ). ·•

Malathi Devi (Deceased) on 14.6.1987. It is evident from the
evidence on record that a dowry passed on to the appellant
consisting of Rs.50,000/- cash, Ac.3.00 of wet land and Ac.6-
E 00 of mango tope along with 50 tolas of gold and 2 ~- of ·
silver. It is also revealed in the evidence on record, that after
about two years of the marriage, the deceased was being
harassed by the appellant as well as by his mother. There was
a demand that the property in her name be sold and deceased
F should bring more money from her parents. The deceased was
beaten by the appellant and was forced out of the house. The
deceased Malathi Devi complained to her mother and other
family members that the appellant was always drunk and ill-
treated her. However, by the intervention of the elder members
of the community, the matter was resolved and an agreement
G dated 14.3.1990 was executed to the effect that the immovable
properties owned by the husband and wife would be preserved
for their children and none of them would alienate any part of
any property in their names. However, they would have a right
to enjoy its usufruct. After sometime, the appellant and his
H
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 673
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

--~ mother started pressurising the deceased to alienate the land A
in contravention of the said agreement and she should bring
money from her parents. The appellant's mother also
threatened the deceased that in case she di{! not agree for the
said transfer of land, she would remarry her so·n with another
girl. The deceased left her matrimonial home on 25.5.1999. B
However, she was taken back by her family members on
26.5.1999 and in consultation with the family members of the
appellant and by intervention of certain other persons, the
~
dispute was pacified. It was resolved that there would be no
quarrel in future. Subsequently, when the family members of the c
deceased had gone to Hyderabad, Malathi was found dead on
. 5th June, 1999. She was-cremated on 6th June, 1999 hurriedly
without being subjected to any post mortem autopsy and without
any information to the family members of the deceased. When
the family members of the deceased came and met the
D
appellant, his mother and other family members attempted to
~._..4
resolve the dispute, and not to report the matter to the police
and for that consideration, the appellant and his mother agreed
to transfer the immovable property of the appellant in the name
of the only child of the deceased. As a consequence Ex.P.2
E
dated 15th June, 1999 was executed and registered purporting
to be a partition deed between the appellant and his minor
daughter Chy Undavilli Nanda Anuradha Sai Krishna DW.1.
According to the said partition deed about Ac.11.69 cents land
was given to the daughter. After sometime, it came to the
"' knowledge of the family members of the deceased that the child F
was not being treated properly, therefore, they approached the
appellant's family and made an attempt to take the child in their
custody but the appellant did not agree for it. Thus, the mother
of the deceased filed the criminal complaint and in exercise of
the power under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, G
the court directed for investigation.
,- {
20. The Trial Court was fully satisfied with the explanation
for delay in launching the criminal prosecution. Admittedly there
was a delay of about 2 months but it was fully explained by the H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

)_--
A witnesses particularly, Undavilli Veerayamma (PW1}, Undavilli
Vara Prasada Ramachandra Murthy (PW2), Goli Ammanna
Chowdary (PW3) and Kakara Krishnamurthy (PW8) that the
appellant had transferred the land in the name of the minor child
and as agreed upon, no criminal case was to be tiled.
B Subsequently, when the appellant and his mother did not take
care of the child properly, the complaint was filed. There is
evidence on record that legal proceedings had also been
initiated by the family members of the deceased seeking
custody of the child. A civil suit was also filed to restrain the
c appellant from transferring the immovable property in favour of
any other person by any means.

21. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that Chy
Undavalli Nanda Anuradha Sai Krishna DW.1, born on
1.1.1991, the only child of the appellant and deceased,
D deposed falsely to save her father and other family members
and she was merely a "tutored witness". There were other
circumstances that the child was in bed with her grand mother,
and not with her mother, when the deceased was allegedly
complaining of a stomach ache. No medical evidence was led
E to establish that the deceased was ailing so seriously from
before.

22. The intlependent witnesses deposed that when they
came to know that Malathi Devi had died, they reached the
F place of occurrence and witnessed that the room in which her
dead body was found, had been opened by lifting the lever from
inside. The body of the deceased was in a sitting posture on a
double cot on her knees, and hanging from a fan tied with a
sari. It was, therefore, inferred that it was a case of suicide as
G otherwise, there was no occasion to bolt the room from inside.

23. Taking into consideration various other circumstances,
particularly, the agreement dated 14.3.1990, the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the relations between the husband
and the wife were not cordial, and that she had been harassed
H to meet the unlawful demand of the appellant as he wanted to
UNDAVALI NARAYANA RAO v. STATE OF AP. 675
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

dispose of the immovable property and compel the deceased A
to fetch more money from her parents. The execution of the
deed dated 15.6.1999 (Ex.P .1) was enough to show that it had
been executed in order to restrain the family members of the
deceased to launch criminal prosecution against the appellant.
The Court also took other circumstances into account. that the B
death of the deceased was in the house of the appellant; neither
the appellant nor his mother made any attempt to inform the
-1 family members of the deceased about the death; her dead
body had been cremated hurriedly without any autopsy having
been conducted; there were independent witnesses like c
Sunkara Nagaraju (PW5) etc. and came to the conclusion that
she had been harassed/coerced to the extent that Malathi
committed suicide. The court rightly found the charge under
Section 498-A fully proved agarnst the appellant.

24. The High Court after appreciating the entire evidence D
concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. We do
not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to !he one
taken by the courts b_elow. The appeal is devoid of any merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail
bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into E
custody to seNe out the remaining sentence.
,. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.