The High Court · 2025

Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri Legal Aid Counsel Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1O2O OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: 1 . This a ppeal is trled by the appellant aggrieve'd by the judgrnent rlated 26.08.2010 in S.C.No.146 of 2OO9, on the h1e of I Aclditional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam l)islrict. The appellant was convicted for t]re offence under Section 304-El of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonrncnt.

2. Heard Sri Veluri Ravi Kumar, learned legal aid counsel for the appellzrnt/ Accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddr, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The proseculion version is that the accused married the deceased jn the year 2O03 and at the time of marriage, Rs.20,0007 - cash, 3 tulas of gold and 3 pairs, of silvcr anklets were given. Parents of the deceased gave Rs.3O,O00/- to the accused. Thc dcceased gave birth to tu-o children, one daughter and one son. Afler the death of the son, accused started demanding money. Tw,o or three time,s, parents of the deceased gave Rs.3O,000/ to Rs.60,OO0/- or-r the dcmand of the accused. The appellant and deceased wir,: married earlier. After leaving their spouses, appellant and dr:ceased married. 2 Alter receiving money, the accused and deceased came over to Kothagudem, where the parents of the deceased lived and opened a cloth shop. After exhausting all the money, thc accused again shifted to Khammam. On demand by the accused, parents of the deceased gave motor cycle to the accused. But the accused pledged the motor cycle and spent money on drinking. Inspite of caution by elders, the appellant continued harassing the deceased. While so, on the date of death, aL 3 a.m., the appellant called the parents of the deceased and informed about the death of the deceased. Parents of the deceased along with other relatives went to Khammam and saw the dead body and found injuries on the right side of eye, on her back, on the temporal region ald also on both thighs of lhe deceased. Suspecting that the appellant u'as responsible for the death of their daughter, father of the deceased lodged a complaint.

4. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 9, mother-in-law and brother- in-1arn of the appellant, who spoke about harassment by the appellanl for additional dowry. The evidence of P.W.l was corroborated by the complaint that was hled under Ex.P. 1. ;-. l

5. Learrred Sessions Judge further lound that death was unnatural on the basis of evidencc of post mcrtem Doctor and also P.W.2',vho treated the deceased on 23.O6.20O8 arrd also on

24.06.2OO8. The deceased died ofl 24.C6.2O08 and the complaint in'as filed on 25.06.20O8 at 1 p.m. The Investigating Ofhcer \\'ent- to the scene of offence and co nducted scene of offence panr:hnama, examined witnesses and sent the body to post mortem examination. Alter con cluding inquest proceedings, post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 found two contusions 2 x 2 on the forehead and occipital region. Ac:cording to P.W.8, cause of death was 'cranio cerebral injury'.

6. Learned legal aid counsel rnould submit that act:ording to final report hled by the lnvestigating Officer, lhe injury caused to the decr:ased was on account of 4 year olcl child rvho while playing r,r,ith a u,ooden cricket bat accidentalll hit the deceased on the forehead, for u.hich reason, thcre vyas a contusion. However, the said revelation during investigati,rn was not stated by the Investigating Ofhccr nor elicited by tLLe counsel in the trial Court. Legal aid counsel further argued that there is no evidence placed on record to suggest that the appellant had in any manncr harassed the deceased for adctitional dowry in proximitl. 1.o her death. When the death was accidental, the 4 question of attracting an offence under Section 3O4 B of IpC does not arise. 7 . Having gone through the record, according to p.W. 1, molher and P.W.9, brother of the deceased, both the appeliant and the deceased were married and at the time of marriage, dowry was given. After marriage, they lived amicably for some time, however, appellant started beating the deceased demanding amount. Rs.6O,OO0/- was given to the appellant for opening a shop and money was also given for purchasing a motor cycle.

8. Accepting the allegations of P.W. 1 and p.W.9 that amount was given pursuant to the demand, however, both the witnesses did not speak anything about any kind of demand that was made and deccased being harassed for meeting such demand prior to her death. The amount of Rs.6O,0O0/- given for opening a shop and Rs.SO,OOO l- .for purchasing a motor cycle was stated, however as to when the payments were made was not stated.

9. To attract an offence under Section 304-8 of IpC, the prosecution is bound to prove

1. That the death occurred within 7 years of marriage / )

2. There u,as any unlawful demand for dowry and to fulfill such demand, deceased \ ras subjected to harassment

10. There is no whisper of any kind of demitnd for redditional dowry thar was made either by p.W. 1 or p.\,tr.9 ancl no such statement is made in the complaint/ Ex. p. I either.

11. P.W.2] is RMP Doctor to whom the deceased was taken on 26.03.2008. According to her evidence, the deccased was suffering with fever. She also noticecl injury o:-r the lcft eye and forehead of the deceased. However it is not the case of p.W.2, that she questioned the deceased about hon, she recr:ived the said injuries Though nothing was elicited during exa mination of witnesses regarding the injuries, ho,,vever, it is duty of the prosecution to explain who causcd the said injuries. Neither P.W. I nor P.W.2 spoke about appellant causing injur_v but only said that thev were informed by Lhe appellant that the cleceased received injr.rries and died.

72. In thr: said circumstances, u,hen the ingrcdrents of Section 304-8 of IPC are not made out, the convrc[ior cannot be sustainecl under Section 304 B of IpC. 13 However, the narration of p.Ws. I and 9 and also as seen from the cornplaint, there was demand for mone\ to be I I I l I 6 arranged, for which reason, money was arranged on two occasions, for opening a shop and for purchasing a motor cycle. It is not the case that amount was voluntarily given, but was given on account of demand made by the appellant and his insistence to pay the said amount. The said act of appellant amounts to cruelty. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 6 months of rigorous imprisonment.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since it is informed that the appellant is on bail, the trial Court shall cause appearance of the appellant and send him to jail to serve out remaining part of the sentence imposed by this Court. //TRUE COPY// 5A{4.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam District (with records, if anY)

2. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam 3. The Member secretary, Telangana state Legal services Authority, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ( By Special Messenger )

4. The Station House Officer, Khammam I Town PS, Khammam District 5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri' Legal Aid Counsel [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies vtugh \cY HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1020 of 2010 1r,B \i lAf €' o( :) c) c) 1 2 FtB 2U25 (.( z o .L t D€.-.rpatcH * PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA \o .*1d k,