The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Narendar Jalli Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: l l ,1 l 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEALNo.292 OF 2Ot2 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is frled under Se<:tion 324(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/accused aggrieved by the judgment da:ed 13.03.2O12, in S.C.No. 182 oi 2OO9 on the file of the I\/ Aclditional Sessions Judge (FTC) Warangal, Warangai District, convicting the appellants/accused under Section 304-8 of IPC, however, acquitting them of the a-lternate charge framed under Section 302 of It,C.

2. Heard lc.arned counsel for the appellants,/accused and Sri M.Vivekiinalda Reddy, learned Assir;tant public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with Rajitha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceasedJ on 3O.O3.2OOS, and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.7O,00O /-, gold, silver jewelr5r and other house hold articles were given as do\vry. Accused No. 1 and der:eased were happy for three months and 2 .... 0 thereafter, she was harassed physically and mentally for getting an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards additional dowry. The ilI-treatment was informed by the deceased, to her parents.

4. The parents and brothers of the deceased, who were examined as PWs.l to 4, convinced accused No. 1 that they would initially arrange the amount of Rs.15,OO0/-, and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,O00/- in due course of time. On 04.11.2008, both accused No:l and deceased, went to the house of parents of the deceased and stayed for one day. On 06. 11.2008, in the morning hours, accused No.1 and the deceased left. On the very same day, in the evening, information was given to the parents and the brothers that the deceased died. PWs.l to 4 went to the house of appellants, and found the dead body of deceased with injuries on her fingers and legs. Suspecting that the death of the deceased was homicidal, a complaint was lodged by PW.1.

5. The police investigated the case and frled charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 -B 3 of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 3O2 of IPC and a.lternatively under Section 3O.l-B of IpC.

6. Durin5l the course of trial, pWs.l to 6, who are brothers, parents, and other relatives of the deceased gave evidence regarding the alleged harassment of the appellants for additionril dowry. The cross-examination was sought to be deferred. However, the learned Sessions Judge refused to defer cross-examination and recorded the cross_examination as nil. Thereafter, by frling an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the witnesses were reca_lled. Afte.: recalling the witnesses, PW. 1 stated that, he and his fsmi tJr msmlers did not have an_y grievance against the appellants ald in fact both accusecl No.l and the deceased were lirring amicably. PWs.1 to 6 frrrther admitted during cross-examination, that the deceased was suffering with stomach pain and due to unbearable pain, she committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison.

7. There are lwo sets of evidence before the trial Court. In chief examination, witnesses alleged that the deceased was harassed ph.,,,sica11y and mentally for additional dowry. 4 However, during the cross-examination, they totally changed their version from what s,,as stated in the chief-examination and deposed that there was never arry harassment and the deceased committed suicide on account of unbearable stomach pain.

8. After the witnesses supported the accused in their cross-examination, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not take any steps to cross-examine the w-itnesses on the ground of hostility. It is for the Public Prosecutor to question his witnesses, when the witnesses produced by him resiled from their earlier statements. PWs.l to 6 are self-condemned witnesses, who have no respect for truth. They have stated two different versions at two dilferent stages of the case' Their evidence cannot be considered selectively on the ground that, whatever was stated by them in the chief examination is correct, and assuming that the witnesses were won over after the chief-examination, and they were made to speak in favour of the accused during the cross- examination. Apart from the evidence of the interested witness PW. 16, who has also given different versions, there is no other independent evidence against the accused, for the 76 5 Court to rel5, 6.r. No reliance can be placed on the evidence of such self-condemning witnesses, giving different versions at different stages of the trial. For the said reason, the benefit of doubt is exte'nded to the appellants.

9. Accord.ngly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, Miscellaneor-r s Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The lV Addition;rl Sessions Judge, (FTC) Warangal District. 2. The Judicial First Class fvlagistrate, Jangaon. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal 4. The Station House Officer, Narmetta police Station, Jangaon 5. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad [OU T]

6. One CC to Srr Narendar Jaltr Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies VHigh t I .,. l / o HIGH COURT DATED: 1 4 10212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.292 o12012 -trtE ;;P. $ 14 \ 17APnM (- z o \.' .: *oeHI -".saa ALLOWING THE APPEAL )