The High Court · 2025

: SRI K.Dinesh ChakrawartY, Counsel for the ResPondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : JUDGMENT :1,. l.ffime7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9L4 0F 20L2 JUDGMENT: The appellant is questioning the judgment dated 23.O2.2012 in Crl.A.No.l7 of 2012, on the frle of IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC) Warangal, Warangal District.

2. Heard Sri K.Dinesh Chakrawarty, the learned counsel for the appellant/compiainant and the learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.

3. The appellant is the defacto complaint. On the basis of the complaint hled by him with the police, the police investigated the case, and filed a charge sheet under Sections 306 and 49g_A of IPC against the respondent/ accused. The trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 306 of IpC and convicted him under Section 498-4 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused approached the Sessions Court. The leaned Sessions Judge, vide Crl.A.No.77 of 2Ol2 by judgment d.ated.26.O4.2OI2, acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence under section 498-4 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is frled.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to Saleema Bee (deceased), who is the daughter of the appellarrt I I I I I I I 2 herein, 12 years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, dowrSr was given, and the deceased gave birth to two boys, who were aged 1 1 years and 7 years at the time of incident. The accused was addicted to alcohol. He used to take money from the deceased and was not doing any work.

5. According to the prosecution, one month prior to the date of the incident, the accused started harassing the deceased to sell the house property in which they were staying, which had been given as dowry. Unabie to bear the continuous harassment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 25.1 1.20 i0 by jumping into Laknavaram tank along with her two children.

6. The Police hled the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 3O6 and 498-A of IPC,

7. The learned trial Judge, having considered the evidence on record, found that the allegation of abetting suicide was not prov<id, and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 3O6 of IPC, while convicting him under Section 498-A of IPC.

8. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the entire allegation of harassment was informed to the parents of the deceased by the deceased. The witnesses have made improvements during the course of the trial, and the entire case relied upon by the trial Court was based on improvements made J during the trial. There are contradictions and omissions in.the evidence of the prime witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased. There was no direct demand made at any point of time by the accused, and the entire information regarding the harassment was conveyed only through the deceased. 9 . Learned Sessions Judge further relied on two letters, Exs.P.3 and P.5, written by the accused. In the said letters, there was no demand for dowry.

10. For the reasons that the evidence of P.Ws. I and 2 revealed that the allegation that the deceased was being harassed was only conveyed by the deceased, and the letters which were filed did not reflect any demand for additional dowry or instances of harassment, the accused was acquitted. 1 1. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rcui Sharmo a. Sto:te (Gooerntnent of NCT of Delhi) and anothef , held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. t (ZOZZ) I Supreme Court Cases 536 4 Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. ln Ghureg Lo.l u. State of Uttar pradeslt, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para ZO as follows: "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and_ other appellate Courts shauLd follou,t the ue -settled. principies crystattized. bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouenule or othenuise distrtrb the tial court's auluittal: palpablg turong:

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouenttle or othentise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial ond, compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in ultich the appellate court u.tould hnue "uery substantial and compelting reosons" to discard the tiaL court's decAion. "Very substantial and. compe ing reasons" exist u.then: i) The tial court's conclusion taith regard to the facts is ii) The trial court,s decAion uas based_ on an erroneous uieu.t of iii).The trial court's judgment is likely to resuLt in ,,graue . - iu) Ttrc entire approoch of the trial court in deating uith the u) The tial court's judgment uas manifestlg unjust and. ui) The trial court has ignored the euidence or misreqd_ the moterial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging declaratiors/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. euidence was patentlg itlegal; mis ca rriog e of ju stice " ; unreasonable; lauL; con-sitTeration o the firrlings of the trial ciurt_ uii)'I:his list is intended_ ta be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must aLuags giue proper ttetght and. 3. If huo reosonoble uieuts can be reached._ one that lead.s to acquittal, the other to anuiction _the High CoGs/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the accused." 'z 1ZOOA) fO Supreme Court Cases 450 \ 5

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that although the allegations made in the Court were , an improvement, however, the said allegations were not made at the earliest point of time, since they were sad on account of the death of the deceasecl.

14. Even going by the evidence of P.Ws. I and 2, the information regarding the alieged harassment was given by the deceased. At no point of time, the accused has demanded arry dowry from P.Ws.1 and 2. The documentary evidence, which are Ex.P.3 and P.5, do not reflect any demand for dowry.

15. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which is based on record and is well reasoned.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. SD/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sE"h:l oFFrcER To,

1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Warangal i. rl'noJitionrl Assistant sessions Judge warangat, warangat District. 3. One CC to Sri K.Dinesh Chakrawarty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies Svs/PSL Yt HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.914 ot 2012 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ?) copt"A -rEt-al i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I