The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri T S Anirudh Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1 91 0F 2016 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is prqferred by thc appellant/accused Nos.t to 3 questioning the conviction under Section 304-8 of Indian penaI Code (for shorf I.P.C) sentencing theln to undergo l0 years ol'imprisonrner rt. 2. Pending the appeal, accused No.2 expired. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated against accused No.2.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.1I2011 the appellanVaccused No. I was rnarried to the daughter of pW_ I . According to PW-l at the time ol maniage Rs.5,00,000/- cash, golcl ontarnonts worth Rs. I ,00,000/- and house-hold afticles wofth Rs. 1,00,000/_ were given as dowry.

4. After the ,rarriage the deceased started living with accuserl Nos.l to 3 at Karirnnag,r. They were happy lor a periorl of 15 clays, thereafter appellant/accused Nos. r to J started harassing the deceasetl for bringing additional dor.vry of Rs.3,00,000/- The harassment was infonred by the deceased to PW- 1, then, PW- t requested accusecr Nos. l to 3 not to ill-treat. his daughter. Howe'er, the liarassrnent continued lor ad,litionar c1owry. on 04.01 .2012 accused No. I took the deceased to the house of I_,W_ I and dropped her sa),i,g rhar rhe der..and of Rs.3,00,000/_ has to bo met for l .11 U 2 continuing to lead conjugal life. On 05-01.2012 at E:30 A.M. the deceased went into her room, closed the doors and hanged herself with her chunni- PW-l went to the police station and lodged written complaint which is Ex- P1.

5. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings rvere also completed and the body was sent for postmortem examination.

6. The police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.l to 3 lor the offences under Section 304-8 of I.P.C.

7. The learned Sessions Judge having frarned charge for the said offence, examined the witnesses cited by the prosecution who are PWs-1 to l 1 and also marked Ex-P l to P8 documents.

8. The leamed Sessions Judge found that the death happened within two months of rnaniage and there is a specific allegation for dernand of additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, accordingly, convicted the appellants sentencing thern to undergo irnprisonment for a period of l0 years.

9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the incident took place within two months froln the date of marriage and the entire evidence that was brought on record is only hearsay, since the cleceased infonned PW-l and PW-3. It appears that the deceased was not interested in the rnarriage with A.l and PW-l and PW-3 3 forcibty got her manied to accused No.l on the ground that atrcused No.1 rvould get a job in police departrnent on coulpassionate grounds. Ile further subrnits that in the cross exatnination of PW-3 it is s tated thal one month prior to the marriage, the accused came to thern a uarriage proposal, "vith however, it is important to note that lather of accusecl Nt,. l died on

09.08.2011 and nonr-rally marriages will not be perlormed within one year after the death of the father.

10. Learned Senior counsel further contended that there is no specific allegation against the accused with regarcl to haras:;rnent for additional dowry but vague and ornnrbus allegations were tnacle. With l'egard to accused No-3. he is younger brother of accused No. I and he has nothing to do with the n-rarital life of accused No.l . A.3 had just completed intennediate at the time of incident. According to PW- l, panch ryat will be held regarding disputes between husband and rvife in their cornmunity, but in the present case, no panchayat rvas held. PW-l in his cross ('xamination has stated that he knew the father of accused No.l since 2:i years. He furlher contended that after the registration of the crime, ac;used No.l could not get job on coLnpassionate grounds. PW-2 categoricall'/ states that police came to the house of PW- I and PW-3 alter fifteen rnirrutes of the incident. But, however, no report was given at that tirne. The F.l.R. was registered only after PW- I went to the police station ar)d gave a repoft to 4 PW- I I at 10:30 A.M. Therefore, there is every possibility of the repoff being given irnplicating the accused after due deliberations. Insofar as accused No.l is concemed, there is no material to attract Section 304-8 IPC as the demand ol additional dowry was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. t l. The learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ol' Durgo Prasad v. State of Madhys Pradesh. The Hon'ble Supreme Coufi while dealing with the situation of dowry death reversed the conviction giving benefit ofdoubt on the ground that the statements of the victim wotnan and brother did not disclose regarding cruelty and harassment prior to the death.

12. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supretne Court in the case of Chabi Karmokar v, The State of ll'est Bengal. The Hon'ble Suprerne Court held that soon before death, there was no force or compelling reasons lor the deceased to cotntnit suicide, in the said circurnstances, henellt ol douhl was exlended.

13. [n the case of Chabi Knrmakar v. Tlte State of lVest Bengal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lteld as under: In paragraph 9 of Rajinder Singh (Supra), this Court had discussed the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC as follows: "9. The rngredients of the offence under Section i04-B II'C have been stated and restated in many judgrnents There itre four suclt Lngredients and they are said to be: a) death of a rvotnan lnust have been caused by any bums or bodily injury or her death tnust have occurred otltenvise than . under nonnal circutnstances; b) suctr cleath must have occuned within seven l ears of her rnarriage; c) soon belore her death, she must have been subjectecl to cruelty or harasstnent by her husband or any relative of lter husband; and d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection s'ith the dernand for dorvry." 14 The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor r'vo':ld subnrit that the death occurretl within two rnonths of the rnarriage an<l presuttlption arises under Section I I 3 B of Indian Evidence Act. No ma rried wo man would Cornrnit suicide within two rnonths unless there was constant harasstnent rneted out by the accused. 1 5. An unfc,rlunate incident of the deceasetl cornnt itting suicide within two lnonths hrrs happened. The allegation is that there was a,lernand for Rs.3,00,000i-. Even the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4 show that the detnand of Rs.3,00,000/- was tnade. The case is tlrat the deceased was ill-treatecl by accused Nos.l lo 3. However, what was the ill-treat|nent that was lreted out by the appellant/accused is not specified. TlLough allegation of 6 ilt-treating the deceased for Rs.3,00,0001 and thereafter leaving the deceased in the house of PW-l on 04.01'2012 is the case of the prosecution, however, neither PW- l or PW-l stated about any additional demand ofdowry that was rnade by the accused. The inlonnation regarding the additionat dowry was through the deceased. However, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 stated that they requested the appellant/accused not to harass the deceased.

16. Placing reliance on the judgrnents of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in the case of Durga Prasad v. State of Matlhya Pradesh and in the case of Chahi Karmukar v. The State of ll'est Bengal, since the allegation of ,l harassment in the present case is vague and ornnibus and nothing specific is stated against either husband or the accused No.3 who is the younger brother of the husband, it creates any amount of doubt. Accused No.3 was studying at that relevant time.

17. In view of the general allegations rnade by PW-l, PW-3 and PW-4, the conviction cannot be maintained insofar as accused No.3 is concerned.

18. Though the alteged harasstnent pursuant to the dernand of Rs.3,00,000i- was tnade, however, nothing specific is stated by any of the witnesses as already discussed above.

19. The fact remains that there was a dernantl and the deceased was left at her parents' house. Accordingly, since ttrc prosecution has failed to i r1 7 prove that thcrc was ill-treatrnent pursuant to the allegr:d dernarrd, ollence under Section 304-8 ol IPC is not rnade out. Howevt:r. accusi:d No. I is liable under Section 498-A of IPC.

20. fhough no separate charge was frarned under Se<:tion 498 A ol'IpC, however the ch;lrge fl-arned under Section 304-8 of lpC reflects rhat there was harassment 1bl dowry and there was a demand lor additio ral dorvry and unable to bear that alleged harassment, the de.ceasecl L:ornrnitteci suicide. The saitl charge framed under Section i04-B of IpC reflectq cruelty as such no separate charge under Section 498.4 needs to lre frarned. Accused No.l is convicted under Section 498-4 of IpC- and ser.Ltenced to undergo irnprisonment fbr a period ofone year. Since accused lrJo.l is on bail, he shall be surnrnoned by the trial court and on such sul.r\)nder; the trial courl shall send hirn to prison to serve out the re,leini,g plrr of the sentence 2I ln vieu,ot the above, the instant appeal stands par.tl1, allorve,:l. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pend ing shall stancl dismissed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 a 4 ( t) ADK The lAdditional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar The lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri T S Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies w HIGH GOURT DATED:0610112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.191 of 2016 ) o t t ./--: . itiE SLq 12 ,r. 2[t5 z o * l-l,{) ::tsFATc \.i--- PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA deDq &--