Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2020 · The High Court · 2025

Smt.Uiala Sate e.r /Vro Subash Sareen Aged about 60 years' O:c' Household, R/o H.No9 ao:, No.1, Prakashnagar, Jamshadpur, [ata Na']ar' Jharkhand State ..APPELLANT/C OMPLAINANT AND The State of I elrngana, by The Public Prosecutor, High of Te angana, Hyderabad Smt.Sima L p[)il], W/o Ramesh Uppal, aged 50 years, Occ Hot.rsewife, R/o beside Kt:C t-are. Himayathnagar. Hyderabad. 2 ...RI=SPONDENTS Counsel for the llplrellant: Sri S. Ram Reddy Counsel for the Flel;trcndent No.1: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosectttor Counsel for the Flel; lsndent No.2: None Appeared Criminal Aooeal No.501 of 2020 Appeal under lle::rrn 372 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgmen dared 18-09-2020 passed in s.c.N.o 3r.:1 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Additiorral IVletropolitan Sessions Judge ()y'tr,."abad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Between: Smt.Ujala Sareertr W/o Subash Sareen, Aged about 60 years..Ctcc Household, Rto tt.No.g. F,'c,irrl No.1, Prakashnagar, Jamshadpur' Tata Narlar, Jharkhand State. ...APPELLANT/C OMPLAINANT AND '1 . The Stat+.' rl '1 Hyderabard e rlangana, Rep by The Public Prosecutor. Higlr of Telangana,

2. Kotagiri ll;tkt>r;h Kumar, S/o Kotagiri Brahmachary, Aged :]4 years,. -Occ. lnfosys Errp r)/le. R/o Plot No.19/1, Suryanagar Colony Ro;rd No.1, Krupa Complex, Safilguda, Neredmet Nio Patelguda (V) Aler ltrlandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Ram Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT r==€ THE HC)NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDI}R AND THE HO:NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENIIGOPAL CRIMI N.A.L APPEAL Nos.445 5OO and 5O1 of 202O COMMON JI]DGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri lustice K.Sun:nd<:r) These l):-iminal Appeals are preferred by accu:;e<1 \o.1 and the comp.a r:r-rt, aggrieved by the judgment datr:d 18.01t.202O in S.C.No.3,12 rrl 2016, on the file of the Additional Mel ropolitan Sessions .Ir- c 11,r Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Redd5'.

2. CruninuLl Appeal No.445 of 2O2O is preferre,C by accused No. 1 que s1 ior i ng his conviction under Section 302 of IPC. Criminal .\1rp,:rl Nos.SOO and 50i of 2O2O are preferred rry the de facto cortltlti:,l ant/ mother of the deceased, questtorring the acquittal ,rf accrrsed Nos.2 and 3.

3. Hea r<l .r':rrned counsel for the appellant/ accusec No.1 in Criminal l.[,r:a1 No.445 of 2O2O, appellant,/conrpla inant in Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2O2O and Sri Atrn Kumar Dodla, lezLr;r,:d Additional Public Prosecutor for respcnd'rnt No.1- State in a[] the ,;riminal appeals. Perused the record.

4. The <ras;t: of the prosecution is that the accused l{o,1 was married t() .?'--etLr Sareen (hereinafter referred to as the d:ceasedJ, 2 on 30.04.2013. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.5,OO,OOO/-, gold ornaments, household articles, etc., were given as dowry. The deceased was working as Air Hostess and continued her job even after the marriage. A son was born to the couple during November, 2014. The allegation against the accused No.1 is that he was harassing the deceased, along with his mother/accused No.2 (acquitted accused). PW. 1 is the mother of the deceased, PW.2 is the father of the deceased, and PW.3 is the sister of the deceased. All three of them have stated about the harassment of the deceased by the accused for additional dowry.

5. The incident happened on 19.04.2075. The accused No. 1 called PW. I on phone and informed her that the deceased was facing difficult5r in breathing. Both PWs.l and 2 went to the house of the accused No.l at Ramanthapur. The deceased and the accused No.l had shifted to the house at Ramanthapur, 10 months prior to the incident. When PWs.l and 2 went to the house of the accused No. 1, they were informed that she was shifted to Matrix Hospital at Ramanthapur, arrd the deceased was declared as dead. PWs.l and 2 observed that blood was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased, and they suspected that the death was homicidal. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged_ with the police on 2O.O4.2O15, at 1O.O0 A.M. Having received the a?::..._ _tir. J Telugr.r rvrit e tr i:omplaint, the Inspector of Police/P\['. 19, who was the then A ;:; isrr ant Commissioner of Police, Malkaju,iri l)ivision, took up invt:s l igat ion.

6. PW. I !) .r e nt to the scene of offence, and .also oroc eeded to the mortuary c f the Gandhi Hospital, where the rleaci bo'ly of the deceased .v:Ls lying. Having concluded the inques - in the oresence of the ind,:Ferrrl:nt witnesses, the body was sent for oosl-mortem examinatir>r . rnitially, the post-mortem exami.rati ;n was conducted c r tt e same day, i.e., on 20.O4.2O15 trv [,',V.1r1. PW. 19 again ga./e z- requisition for re-post-morteln t:xlu rination. Accordingly, th rr second post-mortem examination vras done on

21.O4.2O1). 'l-L t: external injuries arld internal irjuri:s that were found on thc tro,ly of the deceased are as follows: "Exte,'nat h utles 1. Al'rrzl:,rrr of 1/2 * 1 cm was present c'uer left zggortTat',c c.rea of cheek, brouni-sh red in coLottr. 2. A u':tli:,tt abraded contusion of 4 * 3 cm iuo.s preselt c,u'l" left temple area brou,ni-sh red in co[ottr. 3. Cont,t.;i<t'r of 7 * 5 cm was present across the r.os;e on bot.h st.'Ps. 4. Cotlt t.;io 1 right zggomatie oreo utas present tr, an area of 5 * 1) crns. 5. Mt,'.lti7lr6 ant-bite marks were present ot uonous place:; [ik.t feet, shoulder and abdomen which are post nTan'e 1,. in nahtre. Intemal lru!.nes: t' 4

6. Contusian of scatp ouer middle and, back of the head more tou_nrd.s left occtpital was present tn an area of 1O*6 cm brou_tnish red_ in alour. 7. Beneath the injury there is a corresponding confusion of 7*5 cm on occipital bony proper. 8. Sub arachnoid Hemorrhoge of 13 x 11 cm uns present ouer teft occipttal parietol area of brain. 9. Dffuse contusion of inner and posterior chest wall was present in an area of 35 x 12 cm extend.ing to lower abdomen dark red in colour. 1O. Left in ouer peluic ulall was conhtsed_ in an area of 4 x 3 cms dark red in colour. 11. The approximate time of d.eath is uithin 4g ltours prior to post mortem examinotion_ 12. The final opinian for the cause of d.eath to the best of my knou.tledge and belief tuas due to ,,Head_ tnjury,, Ex. P14 is the PME report giuen bg me." 7 . PW. 16 conducted the first post_mortem examination, and PW. 17 is one of the three doctors, who conducted the re_post_ mortem examination on 21 .O4.2OI5. Both the doctors who conducted the post-mortem examinations have given reports regarding the death of the deceased as on account of .Head Injury'. There are no variations in the findings of the post_mortem examination reports, which are trxs.p13 and p14 respectively, performed on 20.O4.2O I S and 2 t.O4.2O I S.

8. Since the cause of the death of the deceased was due to head injury and. the incident happened in the house of the appellant, the Investigating Officer/pW. 19 effected the arrest of I i I I I I I I 5 accused l.lc. i z nd accused No.3, who is the friencl of accused No.1, on l3 tt.l,2015. Both accused Nos.1 and 3 vrere reranded to judicial ..," c,r,ly after their confessional statemen'-s vr:rc. ; ecorded. Accused l{o 11, rvho is the mother of the appellant/zr:cr-rs,ed No.1, was issu<d r rrotice under Section 41-A of Ct-.P.(1.. s.rnce the investigatrorr -':vealed that the deceased was subj,:cted to harassme'lt b1, ]ccused Nos.l and 2. PW. 19 having e xan:ined the witnesses e,r rl collecting the documents, filed a c harrle sheet against accrrs,r:,1 Nos.1 to 3.

9. After c: rnmlttal of the case, the learned Sessior s Judge framed cha:-gt:r; against accused No. 1 under Section 30 j) of IPC, alternativr,ll ; ryler Section 304(El) and 406 of IPC]. Ac cusr:d Nos.l and 2 were :turrged under Sections 3, 4, and 5 ,tf th,,- Dowry Prohibitrorr.\,rt Further accused No.2 was charge d r.rrder Section 498-A of I.)( . .{ccused No.3 was charged under Se.cti,tn 2(t2 of IPC for omitti -rg -o give information regarding the cornn-ri ssion of offence.

10. It is tht: tase of the prosecution that acous€d No.3 was present in tlre rouse when the appellant/accusecl No.1 ar;saulted the deceasec , :-r:r;ulting in her death. ) I l 6

11. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses and considering both the oral and documentaqz evidence, found that the accused No. 1 was in the house when the incident took place and he was not in a position to discharge his burden that shifted on to him under Section 1O6 of the Indian Eyidence Act. Accordingly, accused No.1 was convicted under Section 302 of IpC and acquitted for the other offences. Accused No.2 was acquitted mainly on the ground that she was living separately and omnibus allegations were leveled against her. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case under Section 2O2 of IPC against accused No.3 and acquitted/accused No.3.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused No. 1 would submit that the trial Court has committed an error in invoking the provision under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. No where has the prosecution placed any evidence to suggest that the death was on account of any intentional assault by accused No.l. In fact, accused No. 1 was not present in the house when the incident took place, and the death of the deceased being accidental cannot be ruled out.

13. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Laughanbhai Deujibhai Vasaua a. l]: 7 State of Gqiaratl . He further argued that if thr: prrrscrLce of the accused N r L rs believed and if the accused llo l is held responsible lor the injuries received, the offence r,vorLld f .i11 under Section 30+.l of IPC and not under Section 3011 of lPC The relevanl ;, 'l rr of the judgment reads as under: 'this Court in Dhirendra Kumar u. State a t' [JttctrLl. htotd 2015 SCC OnLine SC 163 has l,tid dorLtt r the l:a.t erneters ulhich are to be taken into consider atiot r tuhile d< ctd ing the question os to tuhether a case' fcLll; unde. ,i<":'itn. 3O2 IPC or Sectton 3O4 IPC, which ole rh ; follot;i,r.: (a) 1'l'l: c t (utrLstances in which the incident took;.lace- (b) Tl,.e n:lure of weapon u-sed; (c) Wtetlc - the ueapon was caried or uta.s taken fro:n rh : spot; (d) trllL<'ttrcr tlte assault was aimed on uital part o.f bcttly, (e) Tl c att t tnt of the force used. (fl lirtrc'l',ei ',lrc deceased participated in the sudclen iilltt: (g) Whe tlt.=, there was any preuinus enmitA; (h) l,lth< ttrcr there was ang sudden prouocatton. (i) WlLe hu '.he attock u.rus in the heat of passton; and (j) Vrtrc:l cr the person inflbting the injury took ang t nd.rt, oduanttqe t)r octed in the cnLeL or unusual montTer.

74. On tlrt rnher hand, the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the rl: f;ctc complainant argued that the accuittill of the accused l,lc. L and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the remaininr{ charges framed L,v : re learned Sessions Judge was totally rmproper. ' lzoray + sc: . : r ]I; 8 Accused No.2 harassed the deceased, for which reason, accused No. 1 and the deceased started living separately at Ramanthapur. PWs.1 to 3, who are the relatives of the deceased, have clearly stated regarding the harassment of the deceased by accused. Nos. 1 and 2 for additional dowry. Since the allegation is consistent, such admission for additional dowry squarely falls within the ambit of Section 498-4 of IPC. The judgment of the trial Court insofar as accused No.2 is concerned has to be reversed and she has to be convicted under Sections 498-A read with 109 of IPC. The learned counsel further argued that the neighbors have spoken about the presence of accused No.3 in the house when the incident took place. Even according to the neighbors, PWs. 1 and 2 went to the house of the accused No.1 after receiving information about the condition of the deceased. In fact, the evidence on record clearly shows that accused No.3, who is friend of accused No. 1, is present in the house when the incident took place.

15. It is not disputed that the death was on account of head injury. Both post-mortem examinations that were conducted on

20.O4.2OI5 ar,d 2I.O4.2O15, by the team of doctors, would reveal that there were injuries on the head which were visible, and the cause of death was on account of the internal injuries. The 9 prosecuti,)r -.iri not let in any evidence to suggest 1Ie nianner in which thr: r (t (tent took place or the manner in vrtich accused No.1 asse .uLt:c[ the deceased. It is incumbent on the pz.rt of the prosecution l-c clicit from the experts the manner n u hich the incident vroull have occurred, and an opinion ought to have been taken frorn t -.c experts stating that the death w;ls on ar :count of the head in jrrry. The probability of receiving the injrLries and the manner in rr 1r'ch she was injured were not r;tatr:d t ither by PWs. 16 o r I l' Le arned counsel further argued thrrt tlle death could hav,: lrt',: : accidental.

16. The eeLrrred Sessions Judge has rightly :n\/o kecl the provision un:.r:r' Section 106 of the Indian Eliderrct, Act and shifted th: o,Llrlen on to the appellant/accused No.1 r.c, explain regarding tlir leath of the deceased. It is not the c:rs:: of the prosecution t.Lir'. the accused No.1 had used any wei1p,:)r or that any blood v e :; .ound either on the wa,lls or on the floc r in the house whr:rr. tlrrr incident happened. Admittedly, foorl rvz,,s found on the flc or o" the kitchen, which indicates th at t her, : rvas a quarrel b,:t v.:e rr the spouses when the incident cf assault occurred. Tirr: eLppellant took a defence and explained in the statement r,f 313 Cr.P.C examination that the death was 10 accidental and by the time accused No.1 went to the house, he found the deceased lying on the floor and unable to breath.

17. The above said explanation cannot be considered since the food was found on the floor which reflects that there was a quarrel between the spouses, after the appellant entered the house.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of l,augha nbhat (cited supra), has laid down the parameters which have to be considered while deciding the question of whether the case falls under Section 3O2 of IPC or under Section 304 of IpC. Admittedly, no weapon was used, and there is no explanation by the prosecution that there was any kind of deliberate assault by the accused No.l to come to a conclusion that the injuries were caused with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The incident happened in the house and the prosecution has not come up with any evidence to rule out the possibility of a sudden altercation or provocation which led to a hght between the spouses, resulting in the head injury of the deceased. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to convert the conviction of accused No.1 from Section 302 ofIPC to Section 3O4-ll of IPC.

19. Insofar as the appeals preferred by the de facto complainant against accused Nos.2 and 3 are concemed, we have not find any in{irmity rvith the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 1l Admitted ly . a.ppellant/accused No. 1 and the deceast'd started living s,)p ara tely at Ramanthapur. When 1.he-v "vr:re separatc ]' . - r:annot be said that accused No.ll u'iis rr:sponsible for any <i-r i of harassment meted out for ad<litronal dowry. In living cases of z c<prittal, unless and until there art atl\' r'ompelling circumstarrr r:; that are shown, the findings of the trial Court do not warrrrr t :-c.rersal of the findings of the judgment.

20. Ac;cr,1rrglv, the Criminal Appeal No.454 of ll0:2( is partly allowed l;v r:rrverting the Section 3O2 of IPC tc Serrriot 304-II of IPC, and ac :r::;ed No.1 is sentenced to undergo sevr:n ('r) 1,ears of imprisonme-1. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are,:oncerned, we do not firr<[ irny reason to interfere with ttre zrcqu ittal, and therefore, (-rir-rinal Appeal Nos.5OO ald 5O1 of )O2O are dismisse l. N{i;c: l: rreous Petitions pending, rf any, shall st:r'Ld closed. //TRUE COPY// 6 SI)/- K. SAILESHI r.JOlltlT REGISTRAR SEC TION OFFICER To,

1. The Add,tic,r irl lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberaba(i at l- B.Nagar.(with records, if :,n),)

2. The lll lvletro rolitan [t/agistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagai-. Ranga Reddy District

3. The Superri rterrrdent, Central Prison, Chenchelguda, Hyde-ahra:1. 4. Two CCs t,r the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabard [O JT] 5, One CC 1o Sili f ). Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6, One CC lo S' S Ram Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD (lc,pir:; \ ) kam/gh HIGH COI.JRT DATED:121A612025 ,/., /.. i Jr4 I I /., //. \:i t, 2 I JU[l 2025 z. * -:d COMMON .'[.'DGMENT CRLA.Nos.4,45, 500 and 5O1 of 2020 CRLA.No 45,4 of 2020 lS PARTLY A I-I-OWED CRLA.Nos.5,C0 and 501 of 2020 ARE DISMISSiED Lo L \) I -?) t'r ) I I I i I i I I I I I