The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. RAMCHANDRA REDOY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE I-IONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSFiY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4220F 2023 JU DGMENT: (Per t-lctn'ble Sri Justrce N. Tukaramii) This appeal l'ras been directed against the judgment of conviction andSentenceda|ei25.04.2023inSessionsCaserNo.4.0.iof2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge' Karimnagar'

2.Wehave:heardMr.PPrabhakerReddy'le'arnedC)ounselfor appellantandlvlr'IVl.RamchandraReddy,learnedAdditicrnalPublic Prosecutor for the r'3spondent-State ' ln the impr.r,3ned judgment, the appellanUaccusecl ihereinafter

3. referred to as 'tht: accused") was convicted and sentenced as follows: For the offence: under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition A,r:t (.,DP Act',), the accused was sentenced to five years' imprisonrnent an,l a fine of Rs.15,000/-, with rl default sentence of six months' sirnple rmprisonment. For the offence, urrcler section 4 0f the DP Act, the accused rerceived one year of rigorous inrprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 ,0110/- \r/ith a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. Additionally, for the offence under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code, 'l 860 ("lPC"), the aCcuSed was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder o1'his natural life and a fin€, ot Rs.1,000/., with a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonm,:nt. n 1 2 PSK.J & N1.,. CRLA 422 202f

4.(a). The prosecution,s case, in summary, is as follows: The accused married the erder daughter of the de facro comprainanupw-1. At the time of marriage, a dowry comprising Rs.2 lakhs in cash, five tolas of gold, and various househord articres was presented- The coupre initiary enjoyed a harmonious married rife and had two daughters. However, over time, the accused began to harass his wife, demanding additional dowry. (b). ln response to this harassment, pw-1, accompanied by community elders, persuaded the accused to desist and managed to arrange a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Despite this, about a week later, on 01'082018, the deceased informed her father/pw-1 that the accused had resumed his demands for an additional Rs.2 lakhs in dowry. She reported that, whire intoxicated, the accused had threatened to kiil her and physically assaulted her. (c)' on 02.08.2018, pw-1 and the erders hurried to the accused,s village, Kishtaraopalli, and convened a panchayat meeting. During this gathering, the accused demanded another Rs.1 rakh to crear his debts. PW-'t promised to pay this amount after seiling his crop and preaded with the accused not to harass his daughter further. (d). Tragically, as reported by a neighborlpW_4, on the evening of 14'08'2018, while the deceased was arone at home, the accused struck her on the head with a pesfle. Hearing her cries, pW_4 rushed to the J 'sK.ld.NlR'J t tl..\ ll2 1023 scene, but the accu:;'=d fled upon seeing him' PW-4 for'rnd ther rieceased lying in a pool of blood and immediately informed PW-l by phore PW-1 and PW-4 rushed tc the house' where they discovered the d(')ceased's pw 1 firr:d a police body with a fatar head injury. subsequentry, due investigation' the police filed a chzrrge sheet reporUEx.P-1 , arrd 'after against the accusetj

5. During the trial' the prosecution examined witnesses P\tVs '1 to 16 and submittecl Extribits P-1 to P-25 and tr/laterial Objects "l trl 7 ln his defence, the acc-rsed denied the incriminating evidenc':r during his examination undet Section 313 Cr'P C ' but did not present arny specific evidence. Howev:r, during the cross-examination of P'Wli; 6 and 7' portions of thelr stzrtements under Section 161 Cr'P 3 were marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-3 6. Upon revie'o'ing the evidence' the learned Sessions Judge found that the giving cf dowry and the subsequent demands fc'r additional dowry were surbslantiated by the testimonies of family memlcerrs/PWs'1 to 3 and panchayal elders/PWs 6 and T Furthermore' the evidence from PWs.1.2.6, an'l 7 established the cruelty inflicted by the accused in connection with ':hese dowry demands Medical evidence confirmed that the injuries sustztined by the deceased were consistent with being struck by a pestle/M O 3 Consequently' the accused vras con'ricted under 4 PS[..J & N I\ CRLA 422 202r Sections 3 and 4 of the Dp Act and Section 3O2 of the lpc, and sentenced accordingly. 7'(a)' The defence counser vigorousry argued that the triar court faired to recognize the lack of legally admissible evidence presented by the proSecution. The defence contended that the prosecution did not establish the accused,s presence at the scene at the relevant time, and that the testimony of the neighb orrpw-4 was inconsistent with the prosecution's case' Additionaily, severar key witnesses-incruding pw-1 (the father), pW_2 (the sister), pW_4 (the neighbour), pWs.9 and 10 (scene observation panchayatdars), and pws.1 1 and 12 (confession panchayatdars) were declared hostile, as they varied with the prosecution,s narrative. The defence argued that, under these crrcumstances, it would be unreasonable to place the burden on the accused to explain the incident, especially in the absence of direct evidence' The defence further asserted that the chain of circumstantiar evidence was not concrusivery established to excrude the possibirity of the accused,s innocence, and thus, the accused should have been acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt. (b). Moreover, the defence maintained that neither the initial presentation of dowry nor the subsequent demands and alleged harassment were proven beyond reasonabre doubt. The orar testimony of witnesses' according to the defence, shourd not have been sorery reried ) rst.1 &NIR.J cl t-\ lll l02l upon to establish these facts The defence also Pointed :ut that' either Paid or iruould be according to PW-1 , the promised amounts were paid after the sale 3f crops' making continued harassment 'lr violence against,n" O"t"lsercl implausible The recovery of blood-starnerd clothes argued that such stains ':ould have was also conteste'l ' as it was occurred while the deceased was being transportecl to the hospital' rendering any infert:nce based on this evidence unjustified (c). Furthermore, lhe defence highlighted inconsistencies regarding the timeline of polir:e involvement' noting that evidence sugges ted police were present at th€r scene on 14 08 2018' yet the official reportrEx P-1 was only filecl on 1 5 08 2018' indicating possible suopressic'n of facts' Finally, the defence argued that findings from the Forens c Science Laboratory repr:rU:x P-25 were not specifically put to the acct'tsed during which was a fata flaw in the his examination urder Section 313 Cr'P'C ' prosecution s c'ast: (d). ln support'lf the pleadings learned counsel for the accused cited the authorities : (i) ln Nizam and Another v sfafe of Rajasthitn t(2016) 1 SCC 55Ol (ti\ ln Kanharya Lal v State of Raiasthan t(2014) '+ SCC 7151' (iii) ln Ashok v St'ate of Maharashtrat(2015) 4 SCC 3931' (iv) ln Prakash v. Sfafe of Karnatiaka(2014) 12 SCC 1331' (v) ln Slva v' State' lnspector of Police, Thiruvitlam Police Station 12022 (4) MLJ (Crl ) 1 131' (vi) ln Tara Singh v. Sfale [AiR 1951 SC 4411' I 6 PSK.J & N I'R,. CRLA 122 2021 8'(a)' The learned Additionar pubric prosecutor argued that, excruding the differed aspects, the testimonies of the famiry members/pws.1 to 3 and mediators/PWs.6 and 7 crearry estabrished both the circumstances surrounding the case and the persistent demands for additional dowry by the accused, as wefl as the cruerty inflicted upon the deceased in pursuit of these demands. Arthough the neighbor/pw-4 rater retracted his earrier statement regarding the accused,s presence at the scene, it remains undisputed that he witnessed the deceased immediately after the incident. (b)' Furthermore, the prosecutor contended that the accused failed to provide any explanation regarding the events at the relevant time, despite the burden resting on him under sections 101 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872- These factors, the prosecutor submitted, coilectivery establish the commission of the offence under section 302 rpc by the accused. (c). Additionally, the injuries documented in the post_mortem examination reporUEx.p-15 conclusively prove the homicidal death and there is no one other than the accused who can account for these circumstances. The prosecutor arso pointed out that the accused admitted his guilt in his statement of admissio nlEx.p_22. 7 I'SK & NTR.J a RL\ l2l 2023 (d). ln light of th':se considerations' he maintained lhat the trial Court rightly evaluated tre evidence and' in the absence r:f anv s;atisfactory explanation from lhe accused' correctly found him guilty tlar:;ed on the Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and should be prosecution's c;ast: dismissed. We have cilrefully considered the submissions anc p erused the 9 materials on record

10. ln the g verr submissions' the factor emerge for deterrnination ts' whetherthepros()Cutionwasabletobringhometheguiltoflheaccused under Sections 3, 4 of the DP Act and Section 302 of the IPC' beyond reasonable doubt? ,ll,Theevidencepresentedbythefatheroftheldeceased/de facto complairrart/PW-1, the deceased's younger sister/P\{-2' a relative of PW-1/PW-:3, a neighbor/PW-4' the photographerr'Pw-s the Tahsildar who conducted the inquesUPW-l3' the doctor who performed the autopsy/PW-'14, and the investigating officer/PW-1€i' - whel considered alongside the irrquest reporUEx P-7 and the post-mortem examination reporUEx.P-15 collectively establish that Kavitha the daughter of PW-1, died et htlrnicidal death on 14'08'2018 in the accustld's house in KistaraoPalli villarle. 8 PSK.J& NI\ CRLA .122 20Zr 12' lt is undisputed that the accused and the deceased were married and living together at the location where the incident occurred.

13. Regarding the payment and subsequent demand for additional dowry, as well as the accused's conduct to enforce such demands, these facts have been consistenry testified to by the famiry members/pws.1 to 3 and the mediators/pWs,6 and 7 who participated in the panchayat. 14' lt is a we,-estabrished regar principre that even if a witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, their testimony shall not be disregarded on that count arone. The court is endowed to carefufly scrutinize the facts deposed and, assess whether the witness has been thoroughly discredited, and may consider any portion of the evidence that remains unshaken, corroborated and deemed reriabre. Therefore, credible segments of such testimony may still be relied upon.

15. Applying this principle, the evidence of pWs.1 to 3 has been carefully evaruated. Their accounts regarding the payment of Rs.2 rakhs in cash, five tolas of gold, and household articles as dowry at the time of marriage, the subsequent demand and payment of an additional Rs.5 lakhs, and further demands for Rs.2 rakhs - incruding the matter being brought before community elders and pW-1's undertaking to pay after selling the harvest of crop - are all consistent with the initial information provided in Ex.P-1. 9 ISK ] & NTR.J ,121,2021 cRL ^

16. Additionally, lrWs.6 and 7 corroborated the presentatron of dowry' their accompanying PW-1 to the accused's place and the denrand of the accused lor additional dowry in their presence' and PW-1's promise to pay amount after the harvest Cross-examination of these witnesses yielded no substantial contradictions' and their testim'lrry remains consistent with th;rt of PWs l to 3'

17. Thus, the lacts regarding the demand of dowry and having no other go satlslying the demand to the large extent lly ther father of the deceased/PW'l and further making promise to meet th€' clemand are firmly established. Therefore this bench is of considered 'rir"'w that' the prosecution has s uccessfully proven the essential elements of the acts of demandandrec()ivingthedowrybytheaccused.lneffeci.,thecharges underSections3etnd4oftheDPActstandsestablishedarrcinthefacts and circumstances, the sentence recorded in the impugned iudgment is found reasonable lS.lnthisc;onlext'itispertinenttonotethat'thoughthercrueltymeted by the accused against the deceased for additional dor'vry has been referred by the \vltnesses, as the trial Court had ac;quitterl the accused under Sectiorr 30.1-B of IPC and this conclusion remained Llnchallenged by the prosecution and this being the accused's appeal' the aspect as to cruelty has to be deserted. l0 PSK.J & Nr,. CRI-A 422 20_2r

19. ln regard to the incident proper dated 14.0g.201g, the prosecution primarily presented the evidence of pW4, a neighbor, as well as the circumstances surrounding the recovery of blood-stained crothing from the accused and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report confirming the presence of blood stains on the clothing seized from the accused.

20. The Apex Court in catena of judgments consistenfly held that, when a case rests upon circumstantiar evidence, such evidence must satisfy (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogenfly and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances shourd be of definite tendency unerringry pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantiar evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.(see. sharad Birdichand sarde t/s. stafe of Maharastra:(1984) 4 SCC 116;and Ballu and another t/s Sfate of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 SCC Online 481) PSI...J & NTR.J a RLA 412 2021

21. PW4 testified that the incidenUdeath had occurred wher a wooden beam fell on the iread of the deceased' and explicitly statr::d that the accused was not present at that time- PW4 further explainec that' upon being informed of the incident, the accused arrived and transported the deceasedtothel(arimnagarhospital'Notably,theprosecuti(rndeclared PW4 hostile, an(i despite cross-examination' nothing st-tbs;tantial was elicited in supp,ort of the prosecution's case'

22. As such, tlre prosecution's evidence of PW4 lails to establish the presence of the accused at the scene during the relevant time' Significantly botl, the PW4's testimony and the statement cf the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC are indicating that other family members are also residing in the house, yet the investigating agency did not care toexaminetheseindividualsandthislapseremainsunexplaired.

23. Another irlportant circumstance implicating the a':cused is the seizure of bloo'l-stained clothing at his instance Ther investigating officer/PW16 decosed that the accused's clothing/tvlo6 ianl MO7 were seized as dot;unrented in the seizure reporUEx P23' Accord ng to PW16' the seized woocen pestle from the scene and clothing were sent to the FSL for examination. The FSL report/Ex P25 confirmed that the clothing/Mo6anrjMoTandpestle/Mo3borehur.nanblcrodstainsof blood grouP 'A I t2 PSK,J & N T\ CRLA 422 2021

24. However, the mediators for the seizure of the wooden pesfle and clothing the witnesses/pwg, pWlO, pWl .l , and pW12 did not support the prosecution's version, which slighfly . favours the accused. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to disregard the testimony of the investigating officer/pW.l6 solely on this ground.

25. According to the FSL reporUEx p25, the material objects reached the FSL on 10.09.20j8, whereas the investigating officer (pW16) stated that the accused surrendered on 17.Og.201g, made an admission, and led the porice to his house where his crothing/Mos 6 and 7 were seized. This timeline is giving rise to concerns about the chain of custody of the material objects/MOs 3, 6 and 7 during this period. 26' Furthermore, to link the brood stains on the crothing to the incident, it is essential to estabrish that the brood group of the deceased was ,A,. Although the FSL report found blood group ,A, on the material objects, the investigating agency inexpricabry faired to coilect evidence confirming that the deceased's blood group was also ,A,.

27. The accused also challenged the FSL findings, particularly the assertion that the crothing seized from him contained human brood of group 'A', and argued that this evidence shourd not be used to convict him as that fact was not confronted to the accused in section 313 crpc examination. on perusal of the Section 313 crpc examination recoro,-in * --- 13 PSX.J & N'TR.J c RL A 4ll_2021 the related questiorr the FSL report was referenced' but as pointed out by the defence, the incriminating finding of human blood stains on the clothing of the ac(lused was not put to him lt is a settled principle that incriminating material not put to the accused cannot b<:r used for conviction.

28. ln similar situation Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakesf' v. State of Karnataka . (2l1tl) 12 SCC 133' while addressing the eviderrtiary value of blood-stained :lothes recovered from the accused lt ob served that since millions may share the same blood group' the mere cresence of matching blood stains is insufficient unless supported by detailed serological analys;is. The Court, citing fara Singh v. Sfate AIR 1951 SC 441 , also hel,J trat the accused must be given a fair oprportunity to explain any incrirninating circumstances under Section 313 Cr'P'C'; failuretodosorenderssuchevidenceinadmissibleagainSthim. 29,lnSlvav'state,lnspectorofPolice,ThiruvizlamPcliceStation.. 2022(4) MLJ (C1) 113; the Madras High Courtreiteratecl that' in cases based on circumr;lantial evidence, simply matching the blood group is not enoughtoestabllshguiltwithoutcomprehensiveserologic,alcomparison, since many peoplc' may share the same blood group

30. ln this position, as this is a first appeal, so far as the FSL finding, this court may furlher examine the accused under sectiorr i313 CrPC or I l4 PSK.J&Nr. CRLA 122 202\ may reregate the matter to the triar court for examination. However, in the absence of evidence estabrishing that the deceased's brood group was 'A', it would be imprausibre to connect the accused to the incident solely based on the FSL report. coilectivery, these circumstances fail to provide compeiling evidence against the accused and leave ampre room for reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

31. ln the absence of prima facle evidence proving that the accused was at the scene during the relevant time, merely on the ground that the accused is also residing in the same house, shifting the burden of proof onto him under section 106 of the rndian Evidence Act does not justify.

32. ln Nizam and Another v. Slafe of Rajasthan:(2016) l SCC 550; the supreme court herd that the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts to the accused onry lf the prosecution establishes, through clear and definite evidence, that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.

33. That apart, lack of defence evidence supporting the alibi pleaded by the accused that he was engaged ersewhere on auto hire-does not alter this conclusion. Furthermore, as per pw4, the accused arrived and shifted the deceased to the hospital upon being informed of the incident. PWS's testimony reveals that when he arrived, the deceased,s body was I 5 PSK.J & NTI(,J ct(L A l2l 202i still at the scene, it fact corroborated by photograph/Ex P5 [:ven if the accused was not involved, passing of information about the incident by the family member or PW4 or the police can be presunled Llpon knowing about the incident in natural conduct the accused should ha';e reached home and the police However' no such effort has been plearled and as per the prosecr"rticn, the accused remained at large until his surrender' while this conrluct may arouse suspicion, as human rear:tittns vary' it would be uniust to base a conviction solely on this behavior without clinching evidence of the accused's presence or involvenlent in the occurrence

34. Accordingly, the evidence on record falls short of establishing the presence of the ar;cused at the scene' let alone his involvement in the offence. For these reasons the prosecution's case is fraught with reasonable cloubt. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, ancl th3 conviction under Section 302 of the IPC; it; liable to be set aside. 35'lntheresult,ThisCriminalAppealispartlyallowed;the appellanVaccrtsed is acquitted of the charge under Sectror 302 of IPC and to this end r;r>nviction and sentence are set aside He is' however' found guilty of rhe offences under Sections 3 and 4 of lhe DP Act' Accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded in th e impugned t6 PSK.J & NT\ cRLA_422_202.] judgment against the appellanvaccused for offences under sections 3 and 4 of DP Act are confirmed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand.closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGIST CTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Sessions Judge. Karimnagar 2. The Principal Sessions Judge. Jagtial 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chedapally, Malkajgtri. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabadIOUT]

5. The Station House Officer, Ramadugu Police Station, Karimnagar 6. One CC to Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Plp/gh \%- HIGH COURT DATED:21 105l',2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.422 <tf 2023 ,'r-:'=:=' :==- 21,i S-ati 2E iiN m t$ z D t) --:'l- PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL. COP ?r,z\ \C, 6, 15 l