Judgment · High Court · 2021

Pagilla srinu, s/o. Lingaiah,.oc_c. Tractor Driver, R/o. cheekatimamidi Vilage of lr,4unugode lr,4andal. Nilgonda District. Pagilla Ling.a.iah, S/o Bakka, iah,.occ. Agriculture, R/o. cheekatimamidi Village of I\,4unugode lt4andal, Nalgonda District. - 3 Pagilla Yettamma, w/o. Lingaiah, occ. Agriculture, R/o. cheekatimamidi village of It4unugode lr,4andaI, Na|gonda District." Counsel for the Appetlant: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR Gounsel forthe Respondents: A PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ... Res pondenUAccused I HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1492 of2OO9 JUDGMENT: This appeai has been preferred by the State, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 21.11.20O6, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Sessions Case No.630 of 2005, whereby, the respondents herein were acquitted of the charge levelled against them under Section 304-B of IPC.

#2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused, and also perused the record.

#3. The case of the prosecution u'as that the daughter of PWs. 1 and 2 was married to A-1. Two months after the marriage, A-1 and his parents i.e, A-2 and A-3 started harassing daughter of PWs' 1 and 2 physically and mentally, demanding for balance amount of dowry and also made her responsible for missing of their she buffalo and beat her. Being unable to bear their harassment, the daughter of P.Ws.l and 2 committed suicide on 17 .O2.2OO4 by consuming pesticide poison.

#4. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked trxs.P-1 to P-9 besides M.Os.1 and 2.

#5. The Court below, has recorded its finding that there are lacunas in the prosecution case. In trx.P-1/report, the specilic allegation is that A- 1 to A-3 along u,ith four others, who were not charge-sheeted, beat the deceased and killed her and there is no averment in Ex.P- 1 that the deceased/ Renuka committed suicide by consuming poison due to harassment for dowry. Further, PWs.1 and 2 2 i.e. the parents of deccased and also the paternal uncle of deceased, stated before the inquest panchas and the M.R.O., who conducted inquest over the dead body that the deceased was beaten by A-1 to A-3 and others and forcibly administered poison to her and thus killed her. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish as to whether the deceased committed suicide on her own or being killed by the accused and others. Apart from that, just prior to the incident, the accused quarrelled with the deceased over missing of their she-buffalo but not for bringing dowry amount. Therefore, the trial Court opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the occurrence i.e. u,hether it is for missing of she-buffalo or for payment of balance dou, ry, and also the cause of death i.e. whether the deceased committed suiciclc on her own or being beat and administered poison and thus killed by the accused and others. With the said findings, the trial Court found A- 1 to A_3 not guiltv of the charge under Section 304-8 of IpC and thus, acquitted them.

#6. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial Court has failed to see that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage of deceased with A- 1 ; the ingredients of offence under Section 304-8 IPC were made out, in which, the burden of proof lies on the accused but not on the prosecution.

#7. The learned counsel for respondents/accused, on lhe other hand, contendcd that thc trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail and after perusing the documentary evidence on record, has given its findings that the prosecution has failed to establish its case, and thus, has rightly acquitted the accused. He contended that there are no grounds to interfere with .> the well-reasoned judgment of the court below acquitting the accused. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

#8. The material on record shows that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the respondents/ accused. The record discloses that there are many contradictions and lacunas in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, when compared to the contents of trx.P- 1/complaint. The prosecution has lailed to establish the cause of death ol the deceased, u,hether it is for missing ol the she-buffalo or for want of balance dowry and also failecl to establish as to whether the deceased committed suicide on her own or \4,as beaten and killed by A- 1 to A-3 and 4 others. For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution has also failed to charge_sheet those 4 other persons who allegedly beat the deceased along with A_ 1 to A-3, though such serious allegations were made against those four persons.

#9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment of the trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

#10. The Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 21.11.2006, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Sessions Case No.630 of 2005. Pending miscellaneous applications, if anv, shall stand closeci. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.CH.VEN KATESHWARLU AR DEPUTY REGIS SECTI N OFFICER To,

#1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District' 2. :wo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

#3. The Station House Officer, N/ungode, Police Station' 4. One CC to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies IVIVK 1 SIA 116 .tr o t) 01 I l,'!AR 2021 a * DFS F }I * HIGH COURT GSDJ DATED:1610212021 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1492 of 2009 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ) .'.rt 0p)