The High Court · 2025

THE STATE OF A.P., Rep by the Public Prosecutor', High Court of A P.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI M. ACHUTA REDDY Counsel for the ResPondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following :ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE E.V.VENUG OPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2206 0F 2010 ORDER: 1 Heard Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, [earned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State. 2 This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., was directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2010 passed in criminal Appeal No.52 of 2009 by the learned I Additionat sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners/accuse( Nos.1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.136 of Z0O7 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in defautt, to suffer simpte imprisonment for one year for the offence punishabte under Section 304-B lpC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishabte under Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, was confirmed. 3 The case of the prosecution in nutshettwas that p.W.1 todged Ex.P.1 report with the police setting the taw into motion. According to him and Ex.P.1, his sister Anjamma was given in marriage to the first petitioner and a sum of Rs.1.00 takh was given as dowry at the I \ \ .-'- .t - .1 7 time of marriage besides presenting five tutas of gotd and they [ived happity for one year and later, A.1 and her in-laws beat the deceased (wife of A-1) on the demand of additionat dowry and started harassing the deceased atteging that she did not give birth to chitdren and that the same was informed to PWI and his mother. When the harassment was continuous, he took his sister to the house of her in-taws and convinced them and in spite of it, they did not stop. Uttimately, there was a panchayat and in the said panchayat also, the additionat dowry..amount was demanded and on the assurance that the amoupt witt be paid after harvesting the crop, sent her to the house of her in-[aws and within short period, she died in suspicious circumstances in the agricultural fields and after reaching the vitlage, found the accused absconding and as such a report was given. 4 After the case was registered as 5.C.No-136 of 2007, during the course of triat, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to '12 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.8. On behatf of the defence Exs.D.1 to D'3 were marked. On appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, found the petitioners herein guitty of the offences punishabte under Sections 304-8 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and ' - 3 sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred Criminat Appeat No.52 of 2009. However, the learned appettate court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned tria[ court, by judgment dated

24.11.2010. Hence the present crimina[ revision case. 5 PWz being mother of p.W.l, supported the version of p.W. 1 in alr respects. p.w.3 is having rand adjacent to the tand of 41. He deposed that on the date of the incident, on observing hue and cry of one M.Venkatamma, he ieached the fietd and observed the deceased was struggting for rife and he carried her to the village on his shoulder and on the way she died. pw4 found that the deceased died in her fietd and he too went there and observed it. pw5 white deposing about marriage of the deceased with 41, stated that rupees one [akh as dowry was given and on two occasions, two panchayats were held before him and other etders in which additionat dowry amount was demanded. According to him, the elders gave a decision that the parents of deceased have to pay the amount after harvesting the crop and it was 20 days prior to the death of the deceased. According to him, A1 , AZ and 44 were present in the panchayat and on the assurance, the deceased was 4 sent back to the house of 41 and on coming to know the death, atl the vittagers went to that vittage and observed the dead body of the deceased, by which time, the inmates of the house have absconded' PW6 white deposing about payment of the dowry amount at the time of marriage of the deceased with Al , stated that the accused were harassing the deceased that she did not beget chitdren besides demanding additionat dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- and there was a panchayat 20 days prior to the incident, where he atong with other elders convinced the accuse( that the amount witt be paid after harvesting the crops and,sent the deceased atong with A1 to tead happy maritat tife. lt is his further evidence that prior to the date of the incident the deceased tetephoned and informed that At beat her and white stating telephone was disconnected and on the next day, the deceased died by consuming pesticide poison and att the vittagers went and observed the dead body by which time, none of the accused were in the house. PW-7 white supporting the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, stated that A1 , A2 and A4 were present in the panchayat and the elders assured that the amount witt be paid after harvesting the crops. According to him, he has acted as an elder in that panchayat. PW8 was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and according to him, he signed inqu-est I 5 report under Ex.p3. He was also present when scene of offence panchanama was conducted. pW9 Tahsitdar hetd inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.p3. He deposed that there was bteeding from her private parts and on her thighs and that the panchayatdars opined that the death was due to beatings. pw10 being the Medicat officer, held autopsy over the dead body on 22.02.2006 and opined that the deceased died due to smothering and symptoms are also possible in case of throttting. 6 The evidence of pW. 1l''who was the investigating officer is with regard to registerin,g FIR and conducting investigation and arresting the accused. 7 The contention of the learned counse[ for the petitioners is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses being brother, mother is interested and that there are several contradictions, improvements and omissions in their evidence and as such their evidence cannot be accepted in support of the charges. lt is atso his contention that they are no eye witnesses to the atteged harassment and though the Triat court has discarded the same, recorded a finding of conviction and as such, the finding recorded by the Triat court and also that of the appettate court is tiabte to be set aside. \ \. B I 6 t! \ He further submitted that the case of the prosecution is surrounded by suspicion because there is no corroboration between the medical evidence and the eyidence of the prosecution witnesses. 8 As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, panchayats were hetd between the parents of the deceased famity and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 with regard to additiona[ dowry. On that aspect there was corroboration from alt the materia[ witnesses. But that atone cannot be a ground to found the petitioners guitty of the offence under Section 304-8 IPC or the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Significantly there was no report prior to the death of the deceased. 9 Each witness was suggested that because of A..l alone leaving Bombay for cooli wok and without taking the deceased, the deceased was humitiated and frustrated for not going along with A. 1 to Bombay. P.W.t has categoricatl.y admitted that the deceased was always interested to be along with A.1 and she intended to go to Bombay atong with A.1, but A.1 did not altow her to go with him. P.W. 1 further admitted that four days prior to the incident the deceased telephoned and asked p.W. 1 to request the A.1 not to go to Bombay, that too without the deceased. Further, each witness r 1 -- 7 had accepted that as the deceased was not blessed with chitdren even after five years, he had some guitty conscious for not having chitdren. 10 The very important point to be considered is that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the death of the deceased. Almost att the witnesses stated that there were injuries on the back side of thighs and chest, swetling over the neck and atso there is bteeding on thighs. Whereas P.W.6 deposed that the deceqsed died by consuming pesticide. But the medical evidence is that the death was due to smothering and symptoms are also possibte in case of throttting. Upon careful examination of p.W. 10 the doctor, who stated in his cross examination that the injuries in Ex.p.5 are possibte if a person hang himsetf to a tree in that struggte. Symptoms noted in Ex.p.5 are possibte in hanging. So there is no ctarity with regard to the death of the deceased. 11 The evidence of p.w.11 the investigating officer would go to show that pW.6 did not state before him that the deceased Anjamma informed him over phone that A. 1 beat her. p.W. 11 :,:" .".:::::"" : ;:;:,-sl:ff"':,:",. .ff:, / 8 r-\-"1\i j totheincident,hedidnotstatethatwhitethedeceasedwastatking over phone, the accused disconnected the tetephone' So' there are material contradictions in the evidence of P'W'11 with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. As per the evidence of P'W'3' the deceased alone was in the fietds on the date of the atleged incident and it is not the evidence of P.w.3 that the first petitioner or the other petitioners were present then and there' 17 Further, it is not the case'tn" ,ro'"tution that the deceased died due to smothering' On the other hand' the defence of the accused was that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a tree in the fietds and the post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W.10 corroborated the defence version that the deceased committed suicide. 13 There is no specific attribution to the accused that onty because of the.harassment meted out by the accused the deceased committed suicide. There is no corroboration on the aspect of the death of the deceased between the prosecution theory and the medicat evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the IPC beyond guitt of the accused for the offence under Section ]9t-B a[[ reasonable doubt. \ ) 9 14 Both the courts betow failed to take into consideration the various contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and failed to appraise the defence put forth by the accused. ln that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the prosecution faited to establish the guitt of the petitioners for the offences with which they were charged. 15 Accordingty, this criminal revision case is altowed, setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.7010 passed by the learned I Additionat Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Criminat Appeat No.52 of 7OO9 and atso the conviltion and sentence imposed on the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 by the tearned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, in 5.C.No.136 of 2007. Bai[ bonds of the petitioners shalI stand cancetled. Miscellaneous petitions if any shatt also stand ctosed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheCourtofthelAdditionalsessionsJudge,Mahabubnagar' 2 The Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge' Narayanapet' 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor'' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to SRI M. ACHUTA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two 6O CoOies /rA- qcl/,.rh l.c HIGH GOURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER CRLRC.N0.2206 ot Z01O lrrlSf^ J 23 AIJE 825 .l r\i..-_ .," ./ ALLOWING THE CRTMINAL REVISION CASE w{ffix\