High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEA LNo:973 of 2011 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr'P C against the Judgment daled 12-07-2O11 passed in S.C-No 2B7 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Karimnagar' Between: Age:28' years' Erukala R/o'

1. Biiili Chandraiah @ Chandu' S/o .Pochaiah' ' 6ilirrrlorirrurr. n,j-* at c-hopladandi' Karimnagar District 2 Smt. Biiili Rajamma Wo Pochaiah' Age:42. years' R/o Cherlabutukuru ' Viirjg"]'i6r.iniligi' Mandal and karimnagar District 3. Biiili Pochaiah' S/o Ellaiah' Age:45. ygqrs' R/o Cherlabutukuru Village' " "KI;i;.;;;; rr,rinoit and Karimnasar District ...Appellants/Accused no'1 to 3 AND State represent by the Public Prosecutor ...RespondenUCom Plainant Counsel for the Appellants: Mr' Nandigam Krishna Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Mr' M' Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT '?,: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.973 0F 20lt JUDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2011 is fiied by the appellalts/ accused Nos.1 to 3, challenging the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.2g7 of 2O7O by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimnagar, wherein the appellants were found guilty ald were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3048 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1g6O (IPC), and were- sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, a_long with a fine of Rs.2,00O/_ each. In default of payment of Iine, they were sentenced to suffer simpie imprisonment for a further period of six months

2. Heard Mr. Nardigam Krishna Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellarrt-accused No.l, and Mr' M' viveka,anda Reddy, the learned Assistant pubric Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent_State. 3' It is informed by the rearned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State that accused deceased, Nos.2and3d.ied.Accordingly,theCriminalAppealstarrds abated insofar as accused Nos'2 and 3 are concerned' 4. The case of the complainant' who is the father of the is that, four years prior to the death of his he performed' her marriage with the daughter, appellant-accused No'l' At the time of their marriage' an a[rount of Rs.3O,0O0/- was given as dowry' They lived together for about one year in Choppadandi' during which time, they were blessed' with a male child' 5. The complainalt further stated that' thereafter' an amount of Rs.15,000/- was demanded as additional dowry' on 20.12.2009, he found the body of the deceased in front of his house, with the clairn that she had committed suicide by hanging. PW.1 then lodged Ex'Pl-complaint' stating that the d.eceased had been subjected to harassment for additional dowry.

6. The police conducted investigation and filed a chargesheet against accused Nos'1 to 3' 7 . During the course of the trial' on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 19 were examined' and Exs'Pl to P6 were marked' On the other hand' no witnesses were exarnined on behalf of the defence, nor were any documents got marked B. The learned Sessions Judge found appellant No.l ald his parents, i.e., appellant Nos.2 ald 3, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3O4B read with Section 34 of IpC, for demanding additional dowry, which led to the suicidal death of the deceased. 9. PWs. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. pW.3 is the sister of the deceased, and pW.4 is the sister_in_law of the deceased.

10. PWs.l to 4 stated that the marrlage took place four years earlier and al additiona_l demand of dowry for an arnount of Rs.15,000/_ was made. 11. PWs.5 to 9 spoke only about the dead body being brought to the house of pW. 1. They did not speak about arly harassment by the appellarrts nor acknowledge any demand for additional dowry. 12. PW. 12 is the independent witness who states that a demand for additional dowry was made. However. his evidence is hearsay. 1

13. PWs.13 to 15 are the witnesses to the inquest' PW'16 isthedoctorwhoconductedthepost-mortemexamination, and stated that the deceased died due to 'Cardio-respiratory failure due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging" 14. To attract an offence under Section 3O4B of IPC' it must be proven that (i) the death of the woman occurred under abnormal circumstances, (ii) within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) the death had a direct link with cruelty by the husband or his relatives' 15. PWs.1 to 4 stated about a demald for Rs' 15'0O0/-' but they did not specify the time or the proximity of when the demand was made' 16. Further, there is no allegation that the deceased was subjected to harassment to meet the demand for additional dowry. Merely demanding money is not an offence under Section 3048 of IPC, unless such a demand is followed by harassment to fulfill the unlau''ful demand' lT.Notevenasinglewitnesshasstatedanythingabout any kind of harassment that the deceased endured to meet the unlartful demand' For these reasons' the ingredients of Section 3O4B IPC are not made out' .

18. Since the allegation of the demand for additional dowry is vague and bald, the provisions under Sections 3 a,d 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are a_lso not made out. 19. CRL.A. No. 973 of 2O1l is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SEC ,hfi*,,.=* To,

1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Karimnagar' (with records' if any) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar' 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Warnagal' +. fh" Sirtlon House Officer, Choppadandi Police Station' Karimnagar S. iwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at District. Hyderabad. [OUT] O. One CC to lrlr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh (n- \11 Si "i '{ \: a' O? SEP zffi HIGH GOURT DATED:28 t13t2O2S JUDGMENT CRLA.No.S73 of 2011 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 3il-