The High Court · 2025

:Mr.Dodla Addition run Kumar, I Public Prosecutor (TG) Counsel for the Respondents : - - - The Court made the following : JUDGME I I T i, ,.-llls-n: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND TIIE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.965 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. The state is aggrieved by the acquittai of the respondent/ accused No.1 for the offences under Section 3O2 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, and acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 302, 3O4(B), 498(A), and 306 of IPC, and Sections 3 zrnd 4 of DP Act.

2. Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State, and learned counsel for respondents,/ accused.

3. The case of the proseclttion is that the deceased, namely Ashr,r.ini, was married to accused No.1 on 17.06.200Z. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.l. At the time of marriage, 12 tulas of gold, bike, and cash of Rs.1,1O,OO0/- u,ere given. The deceased gave birth to a daughter, and thereafter, the accused No.1 started harassing the deceased to fulfill the demand for an additional dowry of Rs.SO,000/_. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also supported accused No.1. A panchayat was 2 ,:., held by the elders and thereaft!rr, the deceased and accused No.1 lived amicably. Howev accused No. 1 started demanding Rs.50,OOO/- towa additional dowry. On

24.O5.2012, the deceased call ds her father and informed about the alleged incident. The ather and others went to the house of the accused and the used abused them. All of them returned home, and meJ nwhile, the father received a phone call from accused No. 1 informing him that the deceased committed suicicle. Government hospital at SanBf She was admitted in the rreddy. On the basis of a complaint given by the father of] the deceased, Crime No. 198 of 2OI2 was registered for the I and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. On O5.O ffence under Sections 498(4.) .2012, i.e. , 1 1 days after the incident, the deceased died, as uch, the Section of law was altered to Sections 3O2 and 304 B) r/w 34 of IPC. The Police, having concluded the investiga! the offence under Sections 3! ion, filed a charge sheet for '12 and, 3O4(B) of IPC, and alternatively, under Section 4! [8(A) and 3o6 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Chj trges were framed against the accused.

4. Learned Sessions Judgl having considered the evidence of the witne"""", .on]ricted accused No.l for the :: :: ,,1,:. 3 offence under Section 3O4(B) of IPC. Appeal filed by accused No.1 is a subject matter of Cri.A. No.B50 of 2O 15.

5. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are: 1 . The prosecution proved that there was demand an harassment by accused No.1, which can be inferred from the evidence of PW1, father of the deceased, PW2, mother of the deceased, and PWs.3 ancl 5, u.ho are the circumstantial w-itnesses.

2. The only evidence to suggest that the death rvas homicidal is the dying declaration that rvas recorded by the Magistrate PW4. In the dying declaration, the deceased narrated that accusecl No.2 poured kerosene on her and accused No.1 set her on fire in the presence of accused No.3. However, the deceased underu,ent treatment for 1O days, and PW17, u'ho is the Investigating Offrcer, categorically stated that he visited the hospital during the course of treatment and found that the deceased was unable to speak. In the background of the Investigating Ofhcer stating that the deceased \ras unable to speak, the statement given to the Magistrate \d.as a result of tutoring trx.P3, which is the dying declaration \ 4 cannot be relied on to onclude that the death was homicidai.

6. The learned Sessions Jud e nevertheless found favour 4 with the version of the witnessei D that there was harassment by accused No.1 prior to dece ased's death, as such, the Judge found that the ingredien] ts of Section 304(8) of IPC were made out, and accordingly convicted him . Whether the harassment by accused Nos.2 a! ,rd 3 was in proximity of the death of the deceased is not disi iussed in the present appeal since it is not the subject matter ] of Crl.A.No.965 of 2017.

7. The Honble Supreme Cou] Alias Nagaraja Reddy u. St, rt, in Pulicherla Nagaraju Ite of Andhra Pradeshl, helcl as follows: '15. It is now well settlei High Court in an appeal different from its power conviction. It can review a evidence ald come to itJ either accepting the eviden court or rejecting the evi! trial court. However. if the depart from the conclusiorl court, it should pay due at] on which acquittal was reasons as to why it hnds t to the acquittal, unacceptaf in mind that (i) the presur] favour of the accused is for] the trial court; (ii) the I benefrt of any doubt; and I I that the power of the from acquittal is no in an appeal from nd consider the entire own conclusions by be rejected by the trial fence accepted by the High Court decided to ls reached by the trial fention to the grounds based ancl state the fre conclusions leading ble. It should also bear [ption of innocence in fihed by the hndings of ccused is entitied to liil trr. t.irt court had ' (2006) 11 scc 444 5 the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses- The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel tl-re doubt raised, arld reject the reasons given by the trial c'ourt." B. In cases of acquittal, the rnterference by the appellate Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu u. State of Keralaz, held as folloq/s: 1 2. ln State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (rf Ram Naresh l(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid do\\,n that al "order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."

13. L'r State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Barjnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 271), this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court rvould be justihed in interfering with a judgment of accluittal by the High Court. The circllrnstances includes: i) The High Court's der:ision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) Thc entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidcnce was patentiy illegal leading lo gra\ e miscarriage of justice: iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on thc record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight ald consideration to the findings ofthe High Court; vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court 2 crt.n.No. toq/os, dated 11.08-2010 I I I t I 6 ;Pr". . a*iti:1] and the acquittal. High Cour-t havf rccorded an order of

9. For any appellate Court to reverse the order of the trial Court, as held by the Hon'ble S upreme Court in the above- cited judgments, there must be compelling reasons to interfere with the hndings of the trial Court. Such compelling reasons may include inferences {rawn by the trial Court that are not pa-rt of the record are not proven. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has !iu", ."""or" on the basis of the record and found that the prosecution was not in a position to prove that the dpath was homicidal, and accordingly convicted accused Nof 1 only for the offence under Sect ion 3O4[B) ot IPC.

10. There are no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the leained Sessions Judge. I 1. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE C PYII To, '1 . The Principal Sessions Judge, Medak 2 lyg CCs to the Pubtic prosecutor, Hig Hyderabad.IOUT]

3. Two CD Copies SVS/PSL Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I at Sangare Court for the state of Telangana, v 'd HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 \ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.965 of 2017 / i.' ?2IUE ;,li\. 'Q^"\ -,.\M jll .l'i,! ., *- '// :.,--:;1j/ DISMISSING THE CRLA ( eA ?\