In Ravi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. D. SANGEETHA REDDY CRIMINA L REVISION CASE NO: 1694 oF 2009 Crl.Revision Case Under Section 3g7 & 4O1 of Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15-07-2009.in s.c. No. 473 .izo'os on the fire of the court of the Principat Asst. Sessions Judge at Xottragude;---- - Between: B. Koteswara Rao, s/o. Narayana Emproyee K.T.p.s. paroncha, Khammam District. AND ...PETtTtoNERy P.w. 1 ! l.BalusuMohanaVenkataNagendraRao,Employee'Heav'rWaterF)lantQuarter No B_1413/5. D.f,o 362, HwFiM) coi";y. Aiwipuram, Khammam District. ( A-1)

2. Balusu Rama Devt, Quarter No. B-14t3t5, D'No 362' HWP(M) Colony' Aswapuram, Khammam District. ( A-2)

3. Kovelamudi Vastrndhara, Kadagala Lanka Village, Bheemadolu lVa ndal' West Godavari Di:;trict , A-3)

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prose-cutgr l'lig-h-C^o u rt of "'RESPONDENTS n.e.,HyOi.oaO l.A- NO: 1 OF 2009 (cRl-RCMP. NO: 233I OF 2009 Petition Und3r Sr:ction 482 of Cr.P'C. praying that in the circum:;tances Stated in the affidavit file,d in support of the petition, the High court may oe pleased to expedite the hearing of the above Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Pr:titioner: SRI P. GIRIKRISHNA Counsel for the R,?spondent: SMT.D. SANGEETHA REDDY The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: HOIII'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL AppEAL No.Z8Z oF 2Ot2 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.16g4 OF 2OOg COMMON JUDGMEIYT:

1. Crimina_l Appeal No.7g7 of 2Ol2 is filed by the State, ald Criminal Revision Case No.1694 of 2OO9 is hled by the d.efacto complainant' Both the cases are filed questioning the acquittal order of the leamed Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.473 of 20O6, dated IS.OZ.2OOg.

2. The revision petitioner/p.W.l, who is the father of the deceased and examined as p.W. 1, lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the marriage of his daughter Srilatha (deceased) was performed with 41 on 24.O5.2OO2. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Acs.3.OO of mango garden, cash of Rs.1,O0,0OO/-,20 tulas of gold ornarnents, and.other household articles. A1 was working as a Scienffic Assistant in Heavy Water Plant, Aswapuram. TWo or three months aJter the marriage, A1 started harassing the deceased mentally and physically, demanding her to get additionar dowr5r from her parents. A2, themother-in-law, 2 arld A3, the mat errnal aunt of A1, respectivelv, also abetted A1' Unable to beer the said harassment, a panchaYat r,l'as held in the presence of P.Srs.4 and 5. At the said panchiay'at, A1 was admonished and he was asked to take carc of ttre deceased. Thereafter, o:'t 28.OL2O05, 41 ca'lled his mother-in-1a$' on the phone and inforrned her that the deceased was nol- lceeping good health aj1d that rihe was being taken to the hospital, ftrr treatment. Later, anothe:r call was made informing that the deceased was serious in ther hospital. On the same day, the decease<l died due to poisoning. The <;omplainant/P.W.1 suspected that the deceased might have bt:en administered poison.

3. On the r:asis of the complaint fr1ed, the czr.se was investigated into, and a charge sheet was hled by the police for th': offence under Section 304-il of IPC.

4. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.W's.l to 16 were examined. P.W.1/the father cf the deceased, P.W.2 ltlne mother of the deceased, P.rlrs.4 and 5/the independent rnediators, and other circumstantizrl w t.nesses were also examined. .'ri 3

5. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record, acquitted the accused. on the following grounds: i) P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the mediators to the panchayat held in May 2003, did not speak about any kind of any demand flor additiona-l dowry. In fact, the panchayat was held for the reason that A1 was suspecting the character of the deceased. ii) The investigating officer stated that he did not collect any documents about the areged gift of agricurtura-r tand at the time of ma_rrlage. iii) P.W. 1, at the earliest point of time, did not speak about any dowr5r that was given at the time of marriage, and it is a developed version during the course of tJ:e tria_I. iv) P.W. 1 did not state that in the panchayat held in May 2OO3, Al beat the deceased at the instance ofA,2 and ,.A.3. v) P'w'3 also developed his version during the triar and stated that an amount of Rs.1.0O lakh and Acs.3.OO of laad were given. Further, P.W.3 claimed that he had mediated in the marriage, and 4 A1 suspected the character of the deceased' This is all clevelopment made subsequentiY. vi) The vers;ion given by P'W'3 about being llart of tlre panchayat an<1 tha.t A1 admitted to harassing the deceased is also an om1ss10n. vii)AfterMeLrl,2oo3thereisnoeventorsper:ifi.callegation narrated. by any of the witnesses that there was any kin'1 of demand for additional Cowry from any of the accused' viii)Theonll.allegationisthatthedeceasedcalleclP.Ws.land 2ontltephrrnea.nd,informedthemabouttheaddilionaldowry demand. ix)P.Ws.7u'td,2,whoaretheparentsofthedecer'rsed'didnot state about al1y additional dowry being demanded b1' the accused' x) The rvitnesses have developed their version regarding the panchayat thret n.as held in May 2003, claiming that it was towards the alleged rlemand for dowry by the accused' However' it is apparent frorn th e record that the panchayat vt'as not held for any reason related trt the demand for additional dowry. There is no 5 allegation of demand for additional dowr5r that was proven by ttre prosecution, which was in proximity to the death of the deceased. *i) Apart from the hearsay evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 that the deceased informed them about harassment, no other evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove that there was any kind of additional dowry demand after the panchayat that was herd in May

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/P.w. 1 argued that on the date of death of the deceased, fa-lse information was given by 41 about ttre health condition of the deceased. Such suppression of facts would clearly ind.icate that the death was a consequence of the harassment for additional dowry. Learned counsel further argued that p.w.g is a witness who worked in the offrce of A1. According to him, there was harassment by the accused.

7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCf of Delhif and anotherl, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that while dealing with an appeal against acqtrittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the 1120221 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 6 trial Court,s view cirn tre termed as a possible one, particrrlzr.rly when the ewidence on rer:ord has been analysed' The reason is that. an order of acqrrittal adds up to the presumption of innocen ce in lavour of the accused. Thus, the appellate cotrrt has to be reiatively slov" in reversing the order of the triel court rendering acquittal' ln Ghureg Lal rt. State oJ tlttar Pradeslt,l.he Hor'ble Supreme 8. Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of la.;r, atrrl the powers of appellate court in reversing the order of acquittal, held ar. paraTO as follows: "70. In the liltht of tLe aboue, the High Coun and other aptpe!'late Courts shouldfotlotutheuell'seftledpinciplescrystallizedbgnumberoJ.Judgments if it is going '.o out:nule or othenL-ise disturb the tial court's acqt':itt':tl:

1. The appellate court maA onlg ouemtle or otlrcru ise d'tstr" rb the trial court's acqu'.tiit f it tns "uery substantial and compellin g reas'on's" for doing so. A number ti instances aise in u.hich the appeltate court uould haue ,,uery substc,.ntial und compelling rezsons' to discard the tial ccturt's decision. "Very substantiat dnd compelling reasons" exist uhen: i) The tiat court's ancluston with regard to the facts is pttlp:tblg urong: ii) Tte fiat ccurt's decision utas based on an en'oneous uit?1L) of law; ihl fne tnat court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue mi;cariage of iu) The entir e approach of the tiol court in dealing uti'th th<t e ' 'iden<:e u;as justice"; patentlg ilte;yal; - rni trt-ol court's iudgment uta.s manifestly uniust and urLreasonable; "i ui) The tiai caurt- has ignored the euidence or misreanT the material euidene or has 'gnored mateial doanments tike dging cleclarations/ report of the ballistic expe4, etc. uii)Thi:; list |s intended to be illustratiue, not extnusliue. 2. Tlrc ap,oellate court must alu.ngs giue proper ueigh,t and consideration o tne, ftndings of the tial u:urt. '120081 10 supre-e court ci ses 450 7 If tt'Io reasonable uier,s can be reached- one that rearrs to acquittar, the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appellote courts nrust rule in fauour of the acatsed.,,

9. In the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Major Singh and another v. State of punjab:, it was held as follows: "lO. To sustain the conviction under Section 304_8 IpC, the following essential ingredients are to be established: (i) the death of a woma:n should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a ?rormal circumsiance,; (i4 such a death should have occurred within seven year-s of her mariage; (iil she-must have been subjectert to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative oi her husband; such cmelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and (u) such cmelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death. (iu) , I

10. A panchayat that was held in May 2oo3 was not on account of an additionar dowry demand, as admitted by the witnesses during the course of their cross-examination by the investigating oflicer. j The entire version of there being an additionar dowry demand is an improvement from the earlier statements of p.Ws. l, 2, 3,4, and 5. Unless the prosecution proves that there was a demand for additional dowry and, consequent to such demand for addilional dowr5r, there was harassment, the offence under Section 304_8 of 312015; 5 Supreme Court Cases 201 Ipc is not ilttnlcted. As already discussed, the allegation of additional do,,lry clemand itself is not proved, and furlher' none of the witnesses han'e specifically stated what the harassrrtent was that was meted out. In the facts and circumstances' 'eone of the ingredients ol'Ser:t-ion 3O4-B of IPC are made out' Learreed Sessions Judge had recortled acquittal and said findings are rei:tsonable and based on rer:ord ' There is no need for interference in the said judgment.

11. Accordingly,bothCriminalAppealandCriminall?evisionCase are dismissed. rlonsequently, miscellaneous applica tions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRI HARI DdPIJTY REGISTRAR 1\ 'src rtoru oFFlcER Kothaad,am District. To 1. The Prinr;ipal Assistant Sessions Judge' Kothagudem 2. The Judiciat t=irst ctass ilaEstrate' lVlinuguru' Kothagudem District' i. ih" ii"ti"" House offiter,-Sub-Divisional Police officer' Manuguru 4. Two CCsr to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ol Telangana at s. ijl'l-cEt. d;i.'6. sANGEETHA REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] 6. One CG to Sri P. GIRIKRISHNA, Advocate (OPUC) 7. One CC to Sri O. KAILASHNATH REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. (OUT) ' kul/gh ! HIGH COURT DATED:04/04/20215 / \\\ j,';'. t-, i -.., : !,i .tt t$, COMMON JUDC,MEI\IT CR IMINAL APP EAL NO -.787 0F 2012 AND CRIMINA L REVISI ON CASE NO. 16940F 2009 \\ . 'i.,t, DISMISSING 1'HE ( IU-.APPEALAND CRIMINAL REVISI{JN CASE \ )A