Criminal Appeal No. 1325 of 2016 · Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Judgment

(per Ton ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) This crirrrinal appeal is frled by appellant/ acc Lrsed No. 1, aggrieved b-r' the Judgment dated 14.12.2016 in S.C.No.!i06 of 2Ol3 on the file of IIi A.dditional District and Sessions Judge, R:mga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, convicting the appellant/accused l',1o.1 for the offences punisLatrle under Sections 3048 and 498,{ of L rdian Penal Code, 1860 (for sLLort, 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr. '1. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for appellant/ ac<:used No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Strrte.

3. PW. 1, fathel of the deceased, lodged a Telugu writterr complaint on 07.12.2011 a,- 15:00 hrs, stating that his elder daughter (Deepthi) married the appeilant/ accused No.1 (M.Radha Hari Seshu, a Software Engineer q,orking in M/s. Polaris Company, ()hennai) on

13.O2.2OO5. He;3ave Rs. 1,50,000/, 3 tulas of gold, I kg silver, household articlr:s, etc., as dowry. Accused No. 1 rvas hzr.rassing the deceased physic ally ared mentally for additional dowry of .\ 2 .x Rs.2,OO,OOO/ Both were blessed with two sons. It is further stated in the complaint that on OT.l2.2Oll, at aroun d Il:2O hours, mother-in-law of the deceased informed over phone that his daughter was not well arrd she was shifted to a nearby hospital for treatment. PW. l, along with his wife (pW.2), rushed to the deceased,s place and found her lying dead in parking piace of the apartment. They were informed by deceased,s in-laws that their daughter committed suicide by hanging. It is also stated in the complaint that pW.3, friend of the deceased, had informed pW. I on OZ.l2.2Ol1 at around 10:00 hours that his daughter was harassed mentally and physicatly for additional dowry, ald that accused No. 1 forcibly obtained a sr.ricide note from his daughter 3 days ago. Injuries were there on the body of his daughter and as such, pw. 1 suspected that accused No.l might have killed his daughter.

4. Crime No.964 of 2OlI was registered under Sections 498 A and 304 B of IPC and an Express F.IR was sent to the Court. pW. 12, Inspector of Police, examined pw. 1, recorded his statement, preserved the scene, ald sent requisition to pw. 1 1 to conduct inquest over the body. Thereupon, pW. 14 took up investigation, went to the scene of offence, drafted scene of offence panchalama and rough sketch in the presence of pWs.g and 9, and seized the saree 3 (MO.1) used for committing suicide' PW'14 examined PWs'2' 3' 4' 5' and 6 and recorded their statements' Statements of P A'l ril Kumar (LW.a) and S'Sekbar (LW'7) were not recorded' PW'1 na rrated the same statements irs narrated before PW' 12' hence' stat(lment was not recorded by P\V' 14' PW' 11 conducted inquest over th') corpse of the deceased in the Presence of PW.9 and LW.12' Postmortem examination rvas' cond'ucted on O8'12'2Oll' Accused No' 1 was arrested on 14.L2i 2071 and accused Nos'2 and 3 (mother in-iaw and of 1.he d.eceased) were granted anticipatory bail on 04.O1.2012. After- completion of investigation' charge shee t u'as filed' father-in-laix'

5. The case zrgainst accused Nos'2 and 3 was discharged vide order, d.ated 14'O)'2014' in Crl'M'P'No '82 of 2Ol4' 6. The case of the prosecution is that after the marrir''ge' accused No.1 took the der:eased to Chennai and stayed there for lcur months' On instigation of accused Nos 2 and 3' accused l'tro 1 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally for addir.ional dowry' Accused No.1 shifted to Hyderabad (to M/s' Satl'am Cornputers) and rented a flat at Nizampet' First child' Harthik Chandra' u'as born to the couple. Alte: three months' accused No' 1 left to US:;A' and three months later, rleceased joined" him' Accused No 1 use':l to beat the ..i .i. 4 a') \ deceased often and force her to consume liquor, which the deceased refused. Aggrieved by his behaviour, the deceased returned to India in February, 2OO8 and was blessed with a child in May, 2O0B' After returning to India, accused No. 1 began neglecting deceased ald demanded additional dowry. PW. 1 performed marriage of his second daughter in November, 2}tl, which was attended by accused No. 1 and his parents. Accused No. 1, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, insulted the deceased by stating that PW. 1 gave more dowr5r to second daughter (witnessed by PW.7).

7. Further case of the prosecution is that the deceased sent an e- mail to PW.3 on 07.12.2017 atOT:O7 a.m., abor.rt the physical torture by her husband the previous day. That on O7.I2.2O1,1, at around 09:00 hours, after dropping the children at School, when the deceased returned home, accused No. I picked up a quarrel and beat her. Disturbed, deceased rushed to the bedroom, bolted the room, and committed slricide by hanging from the ceiling fan with a saree' Accused No. 1, on noticing that deceased bolted the room, banged on the door. When there was no response, he took the help of PW'5 ald tried to open the bedroom door. Both accused No' 1 and PW' 5 borrowed a hammer from LW.7 (S.Sekhar, tiles worker) and broke open the bedroom door and found the deceased hangrng' Accused -,4 ,.t 'i .r 5 No. 1, along s.ith I)Ws.S and 6 and LW'7, shifted the det eased to a nearby Hospital. lr'here the deceased was pronounced deanl' B. Learned Sess;ions Judge, having framed the charges ' examined PWs.1 to 14 arrd marked Exs.Pl to P6, and corrvicted the appellalt/ accus ecl No.1 for the offences under Sections 3O4 3 and 498A of iPC. g. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellar-rt/ ac'cused No' 1 submitted tharr though the complaint (Ex. P 1) rn'as lodged on 07.72.2011 at C3:00 p.m., FIR (Ex.PS) reached Maistrate on 08.t2.2011 at O1:OO p.m., arrd there is a delay of around 2l hours'

10. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW'4 had statedthatwherrhevisitedthedeceased'splaceonOT'\2'2Oll between 11:00 tr> 12:00 am, Police came to the scene of offence' however no report r.vas given at the time. It is furthcr sr-rl rmitted that the a-llegations wth regard to d-owry were not stated bv PW' 1 in the statement under: Section 161 0f cr.P.C. It is also slrbmitted that PW.9 had stated that when he reach;d the place of offerrce at 12:00 noon on 07 .12),.'-2071, Police reached the place of offen':e after one hour. Howevel', Police chose not to register FIR and wait:ed for PW' 1 to come to Poli,:e Station. a:, a 6 !) \

11. It is contended that email from the deceased to Pw'3 was on 07.11.2011 at 07'.O7 a.m. and deceased cornrnitted suicide at 1O:OO a.m. The allegation in Ex.P2-copy of E-mail is that, "raatri baaga kottinde nannu kuntodantaua aniraatri almost okka ganta sepu kottindu". (Translation: He beat me severely in the night for about al hour.) There is no allegation with regard to demand of dowry' That according to Post Mortem Certificate (Ex'P6), there are absolutely no injuriesfoundonthedeceased.Itisfurthercontendedthat according to PW.3 (friend of deceased), she opened Ex'P2 e-mail on

08.l2.2O71between11:00a.m.and12:00p'm'AccordingtoPW'1' PW.3 informed him about Ex.P.2/e-mail on O9'72'2011' when she attend.ed the cremation of deceased and in turn, PW' t handed over Ex.P2 to PW. 14 on ll.l2.2}ll along with Ex'D8-Letter' In other words, PW.3 has seen the e-mail on O8'12'2Ol1 and the sarne was harrded it over to PW. 1 on Og.l2.2ol1, who in turn, handed it over to PW. 14 on ll.l2.2}ll. Therefore, there is any arnount of doubt with regard to genuinety of Ex.P2. It is submitted that though the soft copy of e-mail was filed, the Prosecution failed to procure 65 B Certifrcate. It is further submitted that even accoiding to PW'3' only .t.-' ,t M 7 soft copy of the e-mail was taken, ald neither statelnent was recorded nor reco\ery panchanama was drafted' t2. Placing reliance on certain exhibits marked, it is su.bmitted as follows: that oI-r 13.01.2012, PW. 14 addressed-a letter-[Ix'P12 i) to PW.13 AOP Cyber Crime requesting for login and logout details of PW.3 and deceased ot 07 '12'2Oll' that irL pursuance to Ex.P12 Letter, PW 13 ACf' C1'ber ii) Crime gave a notice under Section 16O 191 Cr'l) C to Google. US}A on 23.01.2012 requesting for login and logout details oi' PW.3 and deceased from Ol'12 2C 11 to Oa.l2.2Ol1 fbr further investigation, marked as Ex F 1 l ' tl-rat (ioogle has sent a mail, marked as Ex D6 ' to iii) PW.13 orL 13.02.2012, wherein it was informed that "Pursuant to the (JS Lart ond gour authoity under Section 91 of tnd'|arL Cr.P.C, please Jind attached IP Actiutty ftom December 1, 2012 to December B, 2012 to the extent readily auailable in cur sgstems for account {prathguani(Qgm ail com} as listed itr Your request to us That'. ofter a careful ond diligent search u'e u)ere unable to lccate ang togin or logout IP Actiuitg for account I .': t". {d.eepthi'mulugu@maif 'com} from Dec 1 to Dec B 'as specified in gour request Please note that u'te usuallg onlg keep the most recent login or togout IP Actiuitg for ang giuen Google Account' uhich is approximatelg 30 dags'"

13. It is contended that PW'5 Watchman hacl stated that he does not know the disputes between the appellant/ accused No' 1 and the deceased. That pw.6, a neighbour, had stated that he did not observe any quarrels between the accused No'1 and deceased' 14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. l-State submitted that the evidence of PW ' 3 ' a friend and neighbor of the deceased" cannot be discarded and is trustworthy ' Evidence of PW'3 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs'1 and 2 with regard to ill-treatment' harassment' i'e'' physical and mental and also the trarassment for additional dowry' It is further submitted that pw.4 found an injury on the right side of the cheek of the deceased when he saw the dead body of the deceased' l'earned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the frndings given by learned Sessions Judge' 15. Having gone through the record' Ex'Pl is a Telugu written complaint of PW'1 addressed to lnspector of Police' KPHB PS' dated 9 07 .l2.2C ll, received at 03:O0 p'm' Ex'P1 is signed by PW r and date is mentioned. It Ls noticed that there is al overwriting of tire date as contended. The contention that date is manipulated t:annot be brushed aside

16. Ex.PB is the' FIR registered at 15:00 hours' on 07'12'2011' h was received on O8. 12 '2011 at 01:00 p'm' in the Court' There is a delay of 22 hours. The delay is not explained' Malipulation of date coupled with the ,C elay in FIR reaching the Court creates anY amount of suspicion ar; to genuinity of the complaint bein g lodged on 07 .12.2011. The ':ontention of the learned Senior Coun se1 for the appellant/ accus;ecl No.1 cannot be negatived' since tine ilelay of 22 hours is fatal tc 1he case of the prosecution' The fact that there is art overwriting of fhe date mentioned in the complaint gives rise to any amount of doubt, as rightly canvassed by learned Senior Oounsel'

17. PW.9 in his evidence stated' that he reached the plar:e of offence at 12:00 or 72:30 noon, that one hour after, Police reach,-:d the place arld conducted pzrnchanamas by 6:30 p'm' in the presen<;e of PW' 12' PW.4 in his evjdence deposed that he visited the apartm':nt between 11:00 to 12:0C ur the morning and by then, the Police :ame to the place of offence PW.8 depose4-t$at panchanama was prepared by .'a r r,-1"' 10 x,.: the Police in between O4:OO to O5:OO p.m. PW. 12 in his cross examination stated that FIR was registered at 03:00 p.m. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. It is reflected in the Panchanama that it was conducted at 16:30 hours by PW. 12. Ex.Pl is the complaint received by PW. 12 at O3:00 p.m. From the depositions and the panchanama, it is apparent that PW. 12 was at the place of offence till 16:30 hours. The fact that complaint was received by PW. 12 at 03:00 p.m. in the Police Station suffers a set back as to the timing of the complaint and creates any amount of doubt.

18. Ex.D8 is a letter dated 11.12.2071 addressed to Circle Inspector of Police, enclosing the text of e-mail message. It is written in the letter that the deceased had flashed an e-mail message 'Distress Message" to her friend, Smt. Pratyusha-PW.3 on

07.12.2OL1 morning, i.e., the day on which the crime occurred. That PW. 1 was informed when PW.3 attended the cremation on

09.72.201.1. lg. Pursuant to Ex.D8, Ex.P13, an email communication dated

06.0l.2012 (at 11:33:18 hrs), was sent by Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to Airtel, requesting the details of user of I.P.No. 11 irb. appolice. gov. rn

20. Ex.P14 is an email communication from Bulusu Chinaramaiah' TTSL-AP Circl<:, to Assistant NodzLl Officer' on 09.01.20 12 (at 13:36:40 to Bulusu Chinararnaiah bY sho cvbercr ime s(r I,( hrs). The commurnication forwarded Alok, CNOC CSO MUMBAI is as follows: 4The belou-t tP Adlress d.oes not belong to TTSL )DMA Vrireless IP Pools".It is also. observed that in Ex'P14 under the captio o 'original message', a request was made to furnish details of user of I'P' No' in Cr.No.964 /2O1 1 R'eference is also made to the name of P\\'' 1'

21. Ex.P12 is a letter dated 13'01'2012 addressed bv Officer on Special Duty, K uk atpally Division to Asst' Commissionel of Police' Cyber Crime PS. tlyberabad' in the letter' it is requested to address a letter to the corLcerned for furnishing the login and logout details of email id s deep th!,ll]lllugu(OC maii'lons & prathyani(4leql4iL:;om for the 07 .12.2011 at particular mzri I 07'.O7 a.m-, for th': purpose of investigation' 22. Ex.P11 is a notice under Section 160 lgl Cr P'C dated 23.01.2012 frorr Inspector of Police' Cyber Crime PS' C'zberabad to Googie Inc., USA The contents are as follows: received by latter on t,:i' l: :.. 12 "NOTICE U/ S 150/91 Cr.P.C. Sub: Request to furnish the login and logout details of email ids [email protected] from deepthimulu 1"t Dec 2O 1 1 to 08th Dec 20 1 1 for further investigation in Murder cum Dowry Death case in Cr.No.964/2011 of KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad - Reg. smail.com and I I l i It is bring to your notice that on O4-01-2O12 received a complaint from Inspector of Police, KPHB P,S., Hyderabad that ail.com and the following email IDs' com are involved in a MURDER CUM prathyu DOWRY DEATH CASE. The Inspector is requested for login and logout details from l"t Dec 201 1 to 08th Dec 2O 1 1 for further investigation. deepthimulu In this regard it is requested that kindly furnish the [email protected] from 1"t Logrn and Logout details of deepthimulu @.srr,aJl.com ald prath Dec 201 1 to OSh Dec 2Ol7 for further Investigation."

23. in response to Ex.Pl1, dated 23.01.2012, legal investigations support, Google Inc. replied as follows, which is marked as Ex.D6: "Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your message. Pursualt to US Law and your authority under Section 91 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, please find attached IP activity from December l, 2Ol2 to December 8, 2Ol2 to the extent readily available in our system, for account prathyuani@gmail. com as listed in your request to us. After a careful arrd diligent search, we were unable to locate any login or logout IP activity for account (deep*[email protected]) from December I' 2Ol2 to December 8, 2012, as specified in your request. Please note that we usually only keep the most recent login or logout IP activity for any given Google Account, which is approximately 30 days." 13 I

24. In the light 'rf the statement in reply' i'e ' Ex'D6 t hat legal investigation support of Google Inc' was unable to locate any login or logout IP activitv for account (deepthimulugu@gmai1'com) from December 7,207|2 to December 8,2012'

25. As already discussed, there is no 65-8 certificate filed along with the print oul rf the E-Mail'

26. In view of the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd,Ari| atias AshJaq v. State (NCT of Dethi)t' in the irbsence of the certilicate as re'quired under Section 65 B (4) of Indiarr Evidence Act, the E-mail cannot be read in evidence' Both for the reason of the investigationbeingunabletolocateanylogin'or1ogout'acti'r'ity'and also for the reason of there being no 65 B certifrcate, the E-mail- Ex.P2 is escherved from consideration' 27 . PW. 1 who is the father had lodged complaint an<1 narrated about the appellalrt harassing the deceased for additiona-l 'lowry' The harassment as st.zrted by PW'1 is an improvement from his earlier statement whic]-r '.s evident from the evidence of the In vestigation Offrcer PW. 12. '{zoz:) : scc os+ &n:: l i l 14

28. PW. 12 stated as follows: "PW.1 did not state to me that the acutsed demonded Rs.5 lakhs, but he has paid Rs.1,5O,OO0/-. So also PW.l did n.ot state to me that the deceased brought less doury and if lrc utould tnue married ong other girl, he utouLd haue receiued Rs.1 crore. PW.1 did not state to me tlwt subsequent to the marriage the occused and his famitg members accepted Ctvi.stianitg and forced the deceased to foltou-t Christionity. PW.l did not state to me that on the eue of houseutarming ceremong of his son, tLrc acansed came to the house ond abused his uife and lefi the house. PW. 1 did not state to me that u-then he offered clothes to the accused at the marriage of his second daughter, he refused the same and tefi tlrc place and on the next doy on the date of SatAanaraAana Vratam the acased come and abused his rt-tife. So also PW.1 did not state to me that uhen he uent to the hause of the accused, tLe deceased asked him to giue Rs.2 lakhs, so that the accused. tuill stop his haraisment. PW- 1 did not stote to me tlLttt u.then he asked his daughter to come to the hause, she refused and demonded Rs.2 takhs. So also he did not state to me that he uill arrange Rs.2 takl;s tttithin trtLo dags' PW-l did not state to me that Lrc found there are no eatobles in the house of the deceased as such he purchased fntits and biscuits and lnnded ouer the same to the deceased. PW.l did not stote to me that his daughter requested him to go duaA as the accused lDill return Lnme in drunken condition and abuse him. It is not true to saA tlnt the amploint and statement utas prepared ajler due deliberations." 15 29 . PW.2, u'hc is the mother of the deceased, stated about the harassment by the appellant. She narrated that the deceased informed her that the appellant was harassing her phys'ically and mentally on a rc'5plar basis. PW.2 further stated that thc appeliant did not chalge his attitude after he secured a job in the USA' The deceased joined the appeilant in the USA where she con<:eived' The deceasedcame}lacktoHyderabadandinformedPW.l')thatthe appellant usecl to harass her in the US after coming home drunk' PW.2alsonarra.t.edthatthedeceasedinformedheraboutthe appellant beating her and squeezing her neck'

30. PW.3 in trer deposition has stated that the deceased was a close friend. Thrrt deceased used to show her nevt' clothes purchased by her husbancl, rmd gold bangles and necklace' PW'3 deposed that the deceased ne.,/l]r j.nformed her that she abused her husband as kuntoda'.Shefr-Lrtherdeposedthattheparentsofth:deceased calne on o6.12.2t111 and she was present. In the chief e xamination pw.3 deposed tha.t she informed parents of the deceased to take the deceased with them. She further deposed that accused be,et deceased severely and marle her to write a suicide note about 4 or l'i days prior to inciderit:.,WlLerL questioned, the deceased informed her why will I t6 commit suicide, I am having children. That she was under the impression that parents of the deceased will take the deceased with them. That deceased came to her house in the evening at 06:00 or 07:O0 p.m. and the deceased was in her house for one hour and attended mails ald sent acceptance for interviews' That next day morning at 08:00 a.m., she received a call from the deceased and that the deceased was weeping as the accused beat her on the previous night. In the cross-examination, it is stated that she saw the mail on OB.\2.2O1 1 between 11:00 a.m' to 12:00 noon and handed over the e-mail Ex.P2 to the Police on LO'12'2Oll'

31. When the evidence of PWs' 1 to 3 is considered, though there is a narration about the appellant harassing the deceased, however' their version does not disclose that there was a demand for additional dowry in proximity with the death of the deceased' Further, there is no evidence that to fulfrll the alleged dowry demand there was any harassment. As already discussed, the entire version of PW.1 about the additional dowr5r demald is a complete omission in his earlier statement. PW.2, who is the mother, did not speak anything about the dowrJr demand of Rs'2 lakhs by the appellant' However, PW.2 stated that the appellant was harassing the deceased 11 to get Rs.4 lakhs for clearing his home loar, however, the amount was not paid. PW.2 totally omitted to state anything about any kind of demand for additional dowry. pW.3 also speal<s about the harassment b1 rhe appellant as informed by the deceaserl. pW.3 does not have any personal knowledge about the alleged harassment apart from the inlormation given by the deceased.

32. PW.7 is re.lated to pWs. I and 2. According to her, pW. 1 informed about the differences between appellant and the deceased and about the appellant harassing the deceased. She has no personal knov,rledge and pw.7's evidence is on th e basis of information given by pW. 1.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of punjabz, held as follows: "10. To sustai:r the conviction under Section 3O4 B lpC, the following ess(rrtial ingredients are to be established: (, the derr:h of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injurr t- otherwise than under a .normal circumstalce : (ir) such a r.leath should have occurred wittrin seven vears of her mariag,.; (iiil she rmlst have been subjected to cruelty or harassm,rnt by her husl:ald or any relative of her husband; (tu) such c:rrelty or harassment should be for or in conrection with rlemald of dowr5r; and 7 IZO1S; 5 Supreme Court C r: es 201 8: 18 (u) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

34. The Honourable Supreme Court, in U.Suaetha a. State bg Inspector of Police and *nother 3, discussed the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC, which are as follows: 'Ingredients of 498-A of tle Indian Penal Code are: a) The u.toman must be married. b) SLrc must be subjected to crueltg or harassment; and c) Such cruelty or haro.ssment must hnue been shoun either bg husband of the uoman or bg the relatiue of her husbond"

35. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any kind of harassment for additional dowry in proximity with the death. Though there can be no time frame fixed by the Court to arrive at a conclusion -of harassment in prodmity with the death, however, every case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances' The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding the appellant beating the deceased and harassing her is overwhelming. However, such harassment was not proved to be in relation to any dowry demand made and to fulhll such demand. In the present facts, prosecution '1zoo91 esccusz -r1 , L 19 failed to prove tha.t the harassment by appellant w-as for additional dowry in Proximit5 with the death of the deceased'

36. In the said circumstalces, no offence under Sectiol 304-B of is made out against the appellant Ho'vever while Indian Penal Cc'd€ setting aside 1-ht: conviction under Section 304 B ol' IPC' the conviction under liection 498-4 of IPC is upheld' placing reliartce on the narration ol PWs.l to 3 about the harassment meted out by the appellant. 37 . Accorclingf'. Criminal Appeal is allowed in peut Miscellaleous Petitions, if any, pending in this Crinrinal Appeal shall stand disrtissed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K ( l \ . SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR 'ra,,r,on, oFFtcER r.]T- To,

1. The lll AdCl. District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddl' District at L-B , T;:1ix [4etropolitan Masistrate' cvberabad' Kukatpall}, at Mivapur' 3. The Super.nrendent, c""i;;i i;il, ci,"iraparrv. Ransa Redd I District' ; +nI ;iji, i irous" omicei' kpn6 potice station' cv-berabad 5 Two CCs to the Public Pt;t;;i;' State of Telangana Hig'1 Court Buildings' . 6#tc;l;il)i]pi"ovu'n" Kumar Reddv Advocate [oPur]l 7. Two Ct) Copies at Hvderabad (OUT) DL I , l i HIGH COURT DATED:29104t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1325 of 2016 .a qi\ 3 0 APfl Zf.T p -] .! r' -\:. CRIMINAL APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART. t 17)9- &&&-..**