The High Court · 2025

THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUS?ICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.679 of 2O13 JUDGMENT: This (lriminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(21 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant/accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.O7.2013 passed in S.C.No.42 of 2013 on the fi1e of the learned Princlpal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2 . For t.l-r e sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as irrrayed in S.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.O3.2012 at 10:00 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station, Sirgapur stating that her elder daughter marriage Pavithra (he:rein after referred as deceased) was performed with Durga Gotrd/accused No.1 on 27.02.2011. At the time of marriage. the complainant presented Rs. 1 ,00,000/ - towards cash, 5 tulas of gold and other household articles. The deyased a.lrd accused No.1 lead happy marital life for three rnolth". ThereaJter, the deceased was harassed by accused No.l and his family members to bring additional dowry of 2 Rs.SO,OOO/-. When the complainant expressed her inability to pay such huge amount, on 09.03.2012, accused Nos. I to 3 and Mr. Hanuman Goud, who is the brother of accused No.l beat the deceased and made her to consume pesticide poison and killed her and created a scene that she herself committed suicide. The accused persons also snatched the gold ornaments of the deceased. Hence, the complaint.

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by the complainant case in Crime No.25 of 2OI2 was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3. After recording the statements of witnesses and collecting the documents, charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court, which was taken cognizance as S.C.No.42 of 2O13.

5. On appearance, charges under Sections 304-8, 306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be I .-++ f\ Y

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 112 and got marked Exs.Pl to P. 10'

7. After iLearing the parties on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court passed the following judgment: "22. In ubu of the disanssion and concluston under point No.2, this court opines that the offence punishable under sectiort 306 I.P.C also stands not proued. To proue abetment, either the ingredients of section 1O7 IPC or section 113-B of The Euide-ru:e Act, as the case mog be, haue to be proued' Section 1O7 retluires instigation or intentional aiding or engaging with others to do a thing, rt-thich is absolutelg absent in this case' For thet presumption adumbroted under section 113-8 of the Euidence Act, to operate, the ingredients to be proued are same as uncler section 3O4-8, which alreadg are held os not proued'

23. The offence punishable under section 3 of the Doury Proh.ibition Act, requires taking of doury - But, the fact that adm.itt<zdlg the marriage of the couple utas perfonned at the hou:;e o.f the ocansed, and as admitted bg PW1, it is because of her f trrnciol incapacitg, does not support giuing of doutry at the tin'te of maniage. Moreouer, it being a monetary transaction requir,zs o better proof than the oral euidence oJ the uitnesses. Hence, the offence punishable under section 3 of tLe Dowry Protibttion Act hc.s to be held as not proued.

124. As it is concluded thot the offence punishable under sectiot't. 498-A I.P.C is proued as against A7, it also goes to prote the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Proltibition Act, as there utas demand of doury. :25. Hence, this court opines that the prosecution could protte llrc guilt of A1, for the offences punislLable under sections I I I i I I { 4 498-A LP.C and secttorl 4 of the Doury prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doub| tohile the other offences punishable und.er seclions 3O2, 304-8, 3A6 I.P.C and 3 of the Doutry prohibition Act, are not proued against him. Houteuer, the prosecution could not proue the guilt of A2 and A3 for ang the offences punishable under sections 3O4-8, 306, 498-A I.p.C ond 3 & 4 of tLte Doury Prohibition Act.

26. In the result, A1 is found guiltg oJ tle offences puni.shoble under sections 498-A I.p.C and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, hence, trc is anuicted therefore, under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. He is not found guiltg of the other offences punishable under sections 3O4-8, 306 I.p.C and 3 of the Doury Prohibition Act., and. hence, he is acquitted tlerefore, under section 235(i) Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are not found. guitty of any of th.e offences punishdbie urtder sections 304-8, 306, 4gg- A I.P.C and 3 & 4 of the Dou.try Prohibition Act, and hence, theg are ocquitted therefore, under section 235(1) Cr.p.C. Their bail bonds shall stand canceled.'

27. The acansed/ A1 is appraised of the findings of the Court and questioned on the serltence. He states that he has to run the family. Consideing tlze submission and consid.ering the nature of offence, accused/ 41 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a penod" aj M gear (one-antl-hatf-gears) and. to pag a fine of Rs.S,OCO/ -(Rupees fi.ue thousdnd onig), and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple impisonment for a period of four mont'ns, for the offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C. For the offence punishabte under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac| he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 /z gear (one-and-holf-gears) and_ to pag o fine of Rs.S,OOO/ - (Rupees fiue thousand only), and. in default of pagm.ent of ftne, to suffer simple imprisonment for a peiod of four months,. Both i.Lrc substantiue sentences of imprisonment shall run cancurrently and_ the period of detention, if ang, undergone by him, duing the inuestigotion, inquiry and triai of the case, stutll be set off against the term of substantiue sentence imposed on him. r 5

8. Hearcl learned counsel appearing for appellant/ zrccused No.1 ald learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

9. Learnr:d counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased studied 10th class while the accused is an uneducated and there every reason that the deceased was uncomlortable with the accused. The deceased from the beginning used to live in Hyderabad along with her mother and there is every possibility that she did not want to live in the company ol' the accused in the village. PW.l in her cross- examinatiotr admitted that as she did not have capacity to perform the marriage of the deceased, the marriage was performed j.n the house of accused No.l as such, subjecting the decease d to harassment for want of additional dowry does not exist. IrW. 1 in her cross-examination or in 161 statement did not state that she promised to give Rs.20,OO0/- to accused No.1.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution did not prove its case against accused Nos.2 and 3 and tlfqr, i ) 6 are acquitted arrd the evidence against the appellalt/accused No.1 also stands on the same footings. Accused No.1 is the only bread winner of the family. He is the one, who is looking after his old aged parents. There is no material evidence that the appellant subjected the deceased to harassment for additional dowry, hence the proceedings against the appellant is liable to be quashed.

11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State contended that the trial Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence avaiiable on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment by convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C and Section 4 of D.P.Act ard the interference of this Court, at this stage 1S unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the criminal appeal.

12. Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under: 498-A of I.P.C: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subiecting her to cruelty Wlaeuer, being the husband or tLe relatiue of the y shall be husband of a utoman, subjetts such utoman to ctuelt i 7 punishe(l tuith impisonment for a tertn uthich may ertend to three t1e ors and shall olso be liable to fine. Erplanation.-For the purposes of this section, "ctuelty" me(lns fu) ang ruilful conduct uhich i.s of such a nature as is tikety tc, rinue the u)oman to commit suicide or to cause graue injury <t, danger to lift, limb or health (uhetler mental or phgsical) of the utoman; or (b,' harassment of the woman u.there such harassment is u.rith tt tt;.eu to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlowful demand for ang propertg or ualuable seatitg or is on aL::ount of failure bg her or onA person related to her to meet .su<:h demand- Section 4 of D.P.Act: Penaltv for demandin E dowrv IJ' ony person dentands, directlg or indirectly, from the parents or other relatiues or guardian of a bide or bidegroom, as the ':ase mag be, any doury, he shall be punishable with impri:;ot', m.ent for d term uthich shall not be less than six montls but u,'hich may exlend to ttto gears and utith ftne ruhich nny ertend to ten thousand rupees: Prouided that the Court nru.y, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the jutLgment, impose a sentence of imprtsonment for a term of les.s than sk months.

13. According to the evidence of PW.l the accused and his family meml)ers looked after the deceased well for a period of three months;. Later, accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing the deceased for want of additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Due to the unbearable harassment of accused persons, the deceased left to PW. 1's house. Thereafter, PW- 1 took the deceased to the ) ) 8 accused house along with two elders and informed A.2 and A.3 that she would give Rs.2O,O00/ . But A. 1 refused and asked to take away the deceased along with PW. 1 and they went to bus stand but the elders of the accused village came and convinced and assured that they would convince the accused ald on the same day the deceased telephoned to PW. 1 informed that A1 beat her with a belt and next morning PW.1 went there and brought to her house. After 15 days A. 1 telephoned to the deceased and asked her to come back to his house as his parents are not staying in his house as he sent them away. The deceased went to the accused house by convincing PW. 1. After 15 days, PW. 1 received a phone call from the police informing that the deceased ciied and the dead body 15 ln Bhar-rswada hospital. When PW. 1 went to the hospital, no one was present at the deari body of the deceased and the pustal thadu was missing. Later, she came to know from the watchman of the hospital that A. 1 took away the said pustal thadu and they were not examined. The said aspects were not elaborated by PW. 1. Hence, there is some ambiguity with regard to the said aspect. FIR has been lodged after a delay of 23 hours. The police did not examine any one from the public, ::..-- \ t I 9 who allegerJly informed PW.2 that there was a quarrel in the house of the accused on the previous night. Hence, the said statement of PW.2 cannot be believed, without any corroboration

14. The FIR was lodged on 10.03.2012 and the date of judgment is 23.O7.2OI3 and since the time from the date of registratio rr of crime and till the judgment is passed, the accused has gone physical incarceration accordingly, this Court deerns it appropriate to take a lenient view as against the accuseC and. accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial Court undr:r Section 498-A of I.P.C is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

15. Secti,rn 4 of D.P.Act is concerned, in the absence of evidence ibr demanding dowry, it is inappropriate to convict the appellalt under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and the prosecutio.r is also failed to prove the ingredients of proximit5r and live link between the cause and effect between the cruelty relating tc, demand of dowry and the death. Hence, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. I t \ ) ( I 10

16. Except the above modification, no further interference of this Court is warranted with respect to the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I I

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, tvledak at Sangareddy. 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narayanakhed, Medak District 3. The Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station, Sanga Reddy 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VH,rySL I I I 1: t I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0510812025 -:r"i -/ -. :'" t o ,.,.:'1.,.. 10 i][T ru5 ,>, JUDGMENT CRLA.No.679 of 2013 PARTLY ALL.OWING THE APPEAL N \