The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.291 OF 2012 fi,DGMENT: This appeal is frled by the appellants/A I & A2, who are the son and mother, respectively, questioning their conviction recorded under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1 96 [ and under Section 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code, by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.659 of 2011, daled 27.03.2012; and sentencing them to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the offence punishable under Section 304-8 of IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5O0/ - each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowr5z Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. PW.1 is the defacto compiainant and brother of the deceased- Laxmi. The marriage of Laxmi with A1 had taken place on

13.08.2006, and at the time of marriage, Rs.1 lakh cash, 6 % Tulas of gold, and household articles worth Rs.5O,000/- were given. A son was born to them. Three years prior to the incident, both the appellants started harassing the deceased Laxmi physically and 2 mentally to fullill the demand for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. panchayats were held, but, there was no change in the leveral attitude of the appellants. On 30.10.2010, at 10.00 A.'M., unable to bear the harassment of the appellants, the deceased poured Kerosene on to herself and set fire. She was shifled to the Hospital in Ambulance and while undergoing treatment on 30.10.2010, she died at 2.OO p.m.

3. The information regarding the alleged harassment and the consequent suicide by the deceased was informed by PW. 1 to the Police on the next day. A Telugu written complaint was filed by PW. 1 at2.OO P.M., on 31.10.2010. In the complaint, PW. 1 narrated about the dowry being given to A1 at the time of marriage, and also stated about the demand for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. In the complaint, PW.1 further narrated that, three years prior, ttre deceased was sent back to the house to fulfill the demand and panchayats were held. The deceased, unable to bear the torture by the appellants, committed suicide.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer-Pw'12, registered the FIR and gave requisition to PW. 1l-Inquest MRO for tJre purpose of inquest proceedings. PW. I I conducted inquest ,1-!- 3 proceedings in the Government Hospital at Mahabubnagar. Jhereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination. The cause of death, according to the postmortem doctor, was due to Hypovolemic shock due to burns.

5. The appellants were apprehended o, ti8. I I .20 1 1 , in their village, by PW.12. The investigation was handed over to PW.13 on O2.ll.2OlO. PW. 13 then went to the scene of offence, prepared scene of offence panchalama and also seized material objects that were found at the scene, which are, Kerosene Tin and Burnt clothes of the deceased. The scene of offence was photographed. Having concluded investigation, PW. 13 filed charge sheet.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses PWs. 1 to 13, and marking Exs.P 1 to P8, found favour with the version of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed for additional dowry, and for the said reason, the deceased committed suicide by burning herself on 30.1O.2010 7 . Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is a delay of one day ln Iodging the complaint. The prosecution has not given any reasons as to why no complaint was --j.i! 4 Iodged on 30.10.201O. If at all a burning case is taken to the hospital, the case would be a Medico Legal Case and unless the police gives requisition, or the outpost in the hospital is informed, the question of the doctors treating a person does not arise. Even assuming that she was treated due to her burns, however, the information would be provided by the hospital authorities to the concerned police. Learned Counsel further argued that the delay in lodging the complaint according to PW. 1 was on account of his stay in Mumbai, and he came over the next day. The said explanation cannot be accepted, since the other relatives and village persons were already present in the hospital. B. The learned counsel further argued that the independent witnesses of the village, who are PWs.S and 7, turned hostile to the prosecution case, and in fact they were not even examined during the inquest. PW. 11 is the Inquest MRO, who examined the witnesses, however, the statements recorded by him were not filed before the Court below. The relatives would have given the version of the witnesses at the earliest point of time, to the inquest MRO. PW. 1 lodged complaint on the next day. It can only be inferred that the 5 allegations were made up and the said allegations are an after-

9. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor argued that according to PW.2, PWs.1 and 2, wlno are brother and sister, respectively, the deceased was constantly harassed for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. In the background of constant harassment, the said harassment is in proximity with the death. The learned sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants herein.

10. PW. 1 is the brother of the deceased. He had come from Mumbai on the next day, and lodged the complaint. pW.2, who is the sister, though stated that she immediately went to the hospital, no reasons are given by the prosecution as to why no cdmplaint was filed by PW.2, and she had to wait for the arrival of pW. 1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the detay in lodging the complaint. Further, it is not known as to why the police personnel, who are the outpost, did not inform the concerned police, or why the police were not present on the date of incident when the deceased was taken to the hospital. 6

11. PW. I was admittedly staying in Mumbai. In his statement, he spoke about giving dowry and also there being a demand for Rs.3 lakhs towards additional dowry. However, according'to PW. l, the additional dowry was three years prior to the incident, and in the year 2OlO, before Amavasya, i.e., before Dasara festival, both the appellants sent the deceased to her house to get additional dowry. Then PW.l and others went to the village of the deceased and conducted mediation. The appellants were advised not to harass the deceased, and PW.1 also requested time to pay the additional dowry in instalments. PW. 1, thereafter, stated that he went to Mumbai and he received information on 30.1O.2010 from PW.2 about the incident.

12. PW.2 is the sister of the deceased, who was present on the date of the incident. She spoke about the demand for dowry and also additional dowry. PW.2 has not specifically mentioned as to when the demand was made. Admittedly, she is married and was living separately along with her husband. PW.3 is also a resident of PW. 1's village. He is the husband of PW.2. He also narrated about the demand for additional dowry.

13. PW.4 is another independent witness, who stated about the demand of additional dowry, and about PW.4 and others going to the i I 7 village and advising the appellants not to harass the deceased, and that PW. 1 would pay the demanded amount in instalments.

14. Though, it is alleged by pWs. 1 to 4 that there was a demand for additional dowry and panchayats were held, however, the details of the panchayats are not given. It is not known as to when the panchayats were held. No proximate time is given by any of the witnesses. Moreover, the elders to the panchayat, who were examined as PWs.S and Z , did not support the case of the prosecution. The other witnesses, pW.4 and pW.6, belong to the village of PW. l. Surprisingly, none of the independent witnesses from the.village of the appellants have supported the prosecution case. As already stated, PWs.S and T have turned hostile to the prosecution

15. The Investigating Officer-pW. l3 admitted that no specific details were given by the witnesses about the panchayats being held. The prosecution, to succeed in a case for the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC, has to discharge the initial burden of proving that there was a demand for additional dowry and to fulfil such demarrd for additional dowry, the deceased was harassed. As already discussed, in the complaint, it is mentioned that, three years prior to 8 the incident, demand was made for additional dowry. Accordingly, there is a variation in between the evidence of PWs.2, 3, and 4 when they deposed before the Court.

16. For an offence under Section 304-8 of Indian Penal Code, the harassment should be pursuant to demand and should have occurred soon before the death. There cannot be any hxed time to determine what constitutes, 'soon before death'. However, on the basis of the facts of a case, the Court has to determine the time frame and whether such a time frame would fall within the requirement . of 'soon before death'. There are inconsistent testimonies and more particularly, the information to PWs. 1 , 2, and 3, regarding the demand, was through the deceased. Though, witnesses have stated regarding panchayats being held, however, none of the elders to the panchayat have supported the case of prosecution, except PW.4, who belongs to the village of PW. 1.

17. In Paranagouda a. The State of l(arno,taka I , the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: "2O. W- incidental question thnt would also arise for our consideration is : bhether ffi conuiction ffi lfi "ccused und.er 12023 SCC OnLine SC 136 9 Section 3O4B ulould be sustainabte? @ ingredients to be satisfied for conuicting an accused fo, W offence punishable under Section 3O4B are: "H W death fr a u)oman should be caused_ bg burns or bodilg injury or othenuise than und-er a normal circumstance. (ii) Such a death should haue occrtrred. utithin seuen aears QI her matTrage. (iii) She must haue been subjected_ to cruelty or harassment bg her husband or ong relatiue _8f her husband. (ia) Such cruelty or harassment should. be for or in connection utith demand $y ao*rg. --. iil Sucn crueltg or harassment is slwutn to haue been meted. out to iiii raoman soon before her deatlt. I 0

18. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the harassment in connection with demand for dowr5r was soon before the death, the conviction under section 304-B of Ipc cannot be sustained, however, the evidence regarding the harassment against the deceased for additional dowry is consistent insofar as pws.1 to 4 are concerned. The evidence also discloses that the deceased was sent back to the appellant's house for fulfilling the demand. The said acts of the appellants constitute cruelty, as explained under Section 49g_A of IPC I t 10 lg.Inthesaidcircumstances,sincespecif,rcallegationismade aqarnst A1 and omnisbus allegations are made against A2' the sentence of imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is reduced to the period already undergone insofar as A2 is concerned' However, A1 is sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC and the conviction and sentence under Section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionActissustained,andboththesentencesshallrun concurrently. The imprisonment period already undergone' if any' shall be set off.

20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed' Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER \ .1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge- (FTC) at Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District. 3. The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Superintendent, Women Central Prison, Chenchalaguda, Hyderabad. 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to Sri V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate-cum-Legal Aid [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies kam/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:24102t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.291 of 2012 7' '' i I -jr '\'; PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPPEAL \l )f ? --':':-::-- !, <).. ?8 nrn 296 .. I .../ '"l.1!.:'5i7 ' - --=;'-