The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRTMINAL APPEAL No.432 of 2OIO JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is hled by the appellants/ accused Nos l and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2010 in S.C.No. 194 of 2OO8 on the hle of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal, (for short, "the trial Court,,) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304_8 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") and Section 4 of Do.,try Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.M.Achutha Reddy, learnecl counsel for the appellants and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Asslstant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent_State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between accused No.l and Jayasree was performed at the house of accused No. 1 i.e., Mulamalla Village. After marriage both of them lived happily for few months at Atmakur. Later, accused starte{ harassing Jayasree demanding additional dovr.ry of Rs.2QOOO/- for motor cycle and there upon LWI Telugu Narsimha adjusted the amount and sent his daughter to the 7 : house of accused; that at the time of the incident Jayasree was carrying seventh month pregnancy ald undergoing treatment. On 27.09.2007 at 08:OO P.M., Jayasree, unable to bear the harassment of accused, poured kerosene on herself and set fire. It is stated that accused No.1 and others poured water on Jayasree, extinguished flames and moved her to Government Hospital, Atmakur and from there to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. It is stated that on 27.O9.2OO7, Tahsildar, Atmakur recorded the dying declaration of Jayasree. and on 2a.O9.2OO7,Iearned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool also recorded the dying declaration of Jayasree. On the complaint of LW1 dated 29.O9.2OO7 a case in Crime No.95 of 2007 was registered against the accused. Upon completion of investigation, S.D.P.O., Gadwal laid charge sheet against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. The learned Magistrate after supplying the prosecution documents to the accused and having satisfred that the offence brought out against the accused is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar committed this case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar under Section 2O9-A of Cr.P.C a J

4. The Court of Sessions Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence and made over to the trial Court. for trial ald disposal. The trial Court vide judgment dared 19.03.2010 in S.C.No. 194 of 2O08 found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-8 of I.p.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted as here under:- "In thc result, AI Dandu Kurumurthy and A2_Smt Dandu Lingamma are convlcted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous lmprisonment for a period o[ Seven vears each for the offence punishabie U/s.304-B IpC. The accused I and 2 further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.t. for a period of six months each for the offence punishable u/s.4 of D.p.Act and to pay fine of Rs.SOO/- each, in default to sufter S.I. for a period of one month each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shali be ser off U/s.428 Cr.p.C." Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of pWs. 1 to 19 and Exs.Pl to P23 in proper perspective and erred in convicting the appellants. He submits that the evidence of pws. I and, 6 I parents of the deceased, suffers from material omissions and contradictions. PWs.2 to 5 and T to lO are independent witnesses arrd they did not support the case of the prosecution. The first dying declaration recorded by pW13/Tahsiidar and the se-cond dying declaration recorded by pWl6/Magistrate are I \ 4 contrary to each other and that the trial Court erred in convicting the accused basing on the dying declaration recorded by Magistrate. Stating thus, he seeks to allow the Appeal. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Lontend's that the 6. evidence of PWs. 1, 6 and 7 corroborate with each other on the aspect of marriage of deceased with accused No' 1 and the demand of dowry. He further states that technical errors will not come to the rescue of the appellants and the dying declaration recorded by PW 16/ Magistrate will have greater evidentiary value. Stating thus, he submits that interference of this Court is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the Appeal' 7 . On behalf of the prosecr.rtion, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 19 and marked Exs.P1 to P23' On behalf of the defence, none were examined and Ex Dl was marked ' Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that the prosecution established that the deceased Jayasree was subjected to harassment by the accr'rsed within two years after her marriage, at their house and that they killed her by pouring kerosene on her and set hre while carrying seventh month pregnancy. Therefore, the prosecution :',.i,€.iffimr ..A: /, a 5 proved that the accused committed the offences with u,hich they were charged and rendered its judgment. B. The trial Court, in para No.16 of its judgment observed that as per evidence of pW I 3, on 2Z .O9.2OOZ, on the information of PW18, the then S.I. of police, Atmakur he went to Government Hospital, Atmakur and recorded the statement of Jayasree on 27.O9.2OO7. The evidence of pW13 is sufficient to believe that on 2Z.Og.2OO7 itself, pWlg has knowledge about the admission of Jayasree in the Government Hospital, Atmakur with burn injuries and about the incident. During the cross-examination, PW 18 candidly conceded that he was present in the hospital premises while recording clying declaration of Jayasree by M.R.O./pW13. The sairi admission is sufficient to come to the conclusion that pW 1g himself requested PW13 to record the dying declaration of Jayasree on 27 .O9.2OO7 and that he n as present there at the time of recording of Ex P15 by M.R.O. If that is so, it creates a doubt as to why PW 18 could not register a case on 2Z .O9 .2OO7 itself immediately after knowing that Jayasree was admitted in the hospital. PW 1 8 ought to have registered a case immediately aftel hrowing that Jayasree was admitted in the hospital or 6 a-' atleast after informing to PW 13 /Tahsildar to record the statement of Jayasree, but PW18 could not do so for the reasons best known to him. If the fault is on the part of Investigating agency injustice should not be caused to the deceased Jayasree even after her death During the cross-examination, PW18 also conceded that he could not examine any neighbours of the scene of offence and could not record their statements. The trial Court, further observed that the evidence of neighbours n'ill play important role in these type of offences with regard to the harassment of the accused and behavior of the accused towards the deceased Jayasree and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that in the case of defective investigation, it wouid not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise proved conclusively' g. In the dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar/Ex P15' the victim deposed that due to continuous harassment by her husband and mother-in-law, she poured kerosene on herself and burnt; that at the time of incident, her husband has gone out, Later, he admitted her in hospital. It is evident from record that the proceedings commenced at 02:00 P'M' n 7

10. PW15, in his deposition stated that he was present at the time of recording of Dying Declaration by Tahsildar and after recording the same, he had referred her to Government Hospitai, Kurnool for better treatment and Flx p16 is his endorsemen I on Ex pl 5,

11. It is pertinent to note hear that one other dying declaration has been recorded by pWl6/Magistrate ,"r,hich is marked as Ex P18. A perusal of Ex p1g shows that the proceedings commenced at 2:OO p.M. a.cl the 'ictim stated as follows: "I got married two years ago. Rs.60,OOO/- in cash and 5 Thulas gold were given at the time of mar.iage. My husbald and my aunt do not like me. They have beeir harassing me since I got married. yesterday, my husbald ald aunf got into a frght and poured kerosene on me and set rne on 1ire. My aunt poured water on me when I screamecl. Later mv aunt and my husband took me to Atmakur G,>rrern-erri Hospital, from there I was brought to Kurnool hospital".

72. PW16/Magistrate, in his cross_examination. deposed that he did not obtain certification from the duty Doctor with regard to the mental condition of the patient before recording dying declaration. He did not peruse the case sheet o1.the declarant. He cannot say the percentage of burns sustained by the declarant. In the case on hand, there are two dying declarations ..ra 1tft.. are major discrepancies and inconsistencies in i 8 a betweenthem.Therefore,thereisnocogent,convincingand corroborating evid.ence to show the cause of death of the victim and that the accused subjected the victim to cruelty soon before her death for want of additional dowry' Therefore' relying onthedecisionrenderedbylheHon'bleSupremeCourtin IrfanVs.StateofUttarPradeshl'thisCourtisoftheopinion that it is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in the cases where suspicion' like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration tn such cases' the Court may trave to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence' The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion' Moreover' it is evident from the record that the incident has taken place on 27.OI.2OO7 at about OB:OO PM and the compiainant gave his complaint on 29.09 '2OO7 at l7:3O hours i'e'' after a lapse of 45,Zhoursandthecauseofsuchdelayisnotsatisfactorily explained. Therefore, in the absence of any clinching evidence to prove that the accused had committed the alleged I 2023 SCC Or.Line sc 1060 _Z!;FPE#EFI . .-.: -, .. _:- .1 9 offences, this Court is not convinced to presume that the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304-8 of Indian penal Code (for short, ..I.p.C.") and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

13. In view of the mitigating circumstalces discussed above, this Court is inclined to acquit the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 by extending beneht of doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainabre under law and the same is liable to be set aside.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction ald sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial court is hereby set aside and thev ar-e not found guilty of the said offences and therefore, acquitted of the charges. The fine amount, if ary, paid by the appeilants/accused shall be returned to them. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled. 10 o Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' SD/. B. SAryAVATHI INT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, i I I I . l

1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Gadwal' 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate' Atmakur' Mahabubnagar District' 3. The Superintendent, District Jail' Mahabubnagar 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at HYderabad.[OUT]

5. One CC to Sri M Achuta Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD CoPies VI{/gh M- j-,':'=::-::\ /-a" f,e s'r/ . t' O? SEP zffi \ ,\ .-\l i.J \ 't 9", ,. ir) ' '. ,,i I'j HIGH COURT DATED: 1410712025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.432 ot 2010 ALLOWING THE APPEAL q q g I I i i I I I I i i I I I t I I i i I : i I I I t I I t I l I I I I I I I i I I