The High Court · 2025

Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri Legal Aid Counsel Sri M Vivekandana Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : f 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.6 OF 2O12 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants/Al and A2 aggrieved by the conviction recordcd by the Special Sessions Judgc-cum-Vll Add[.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.l44 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 304-8 and 498-4. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50O/- each for the offence under Section 498-A of e-? IPC; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of sk months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,O00/ each for the offent'e under Section 304-B ol lPC.

2. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kumar, Iearned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.l lodged a complaint with the Sub inspector of Police, Bhoothpur Mandal, on { 2

25.O2.2OO8. In the said complaint, he stated that his sister Suvarna (deceased) was married to A1/appellant No.1, four years prior to the complaint. At the time of marriage Rs.10,000/- cash, 3 Tulas of gold, and 40 Tulas of silver leg kadas, were given to Al Though, dowry was given, both the appellants started harassing the deceased physically and mentally for getting additional dowry and one Auto' Since the financial condition was not good, PW'1 could not arrange the demanded amount, however, articles were being given now and then.

4. Further, appellants also harassed the deceased for not giving birth to children. During 'sankranthi' festival, the deceased went to the house and informed PW. 1 that her husband was asking for an Auto as additional dowry. Ten days prior to the incident, the deceased called PW.1 and stated that since the Auto was not provided, the appellants were harassing her. On 24'O2'2OOB, at about 6.00 P.M., PW. 1 came to know that his sister died due to hanging and accordingly, he lodged a complaint on the next day at

8.30 A.M

5. After the crime #as registered, investigation was taken up and thereafter, concluded by PW.9, who {iled charge sheet' If- ':ir€ 3

6. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence given by PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, who stated about harassment, found the appellants guilty and accordingly, convicted them.

7. PW.1 is the brother of the deceased who stated that there was a demand for additional dowry and the same was informed by the deceased. Then, both PW.1 and his parents went to the village and approached the village elders, where a Panchayat was held. There, they paid Rs.20,00O/- to ,{2 and A3 (died), however, within one week, accused started harassing her and took awal' her silver n- ., anklets. Within three days after the incident, the deceased committed suicide. The said version given by PW.1 is contrary to what was stated in the complaint at the earliest point of time. In the complaint, it is stated that Auto was demanded and there is no mention of an amount of Rs.2O,000/- being given to accused.

8. PW.2 is the father of the deceased. He stated that at the time of marriage, he gave a dowry of Rs.10,OOO/- cash, 3 TulaS of gold, and a pair of silver anklets, however, the appellants/ Accused started harassing for additional dowry. PW.2, then paid Rs.B,OOO l- by selling his cattle. In the cross-cxamination of PW.2, he stated that he was not present at the time of marriage of the deceased and he came aI I 4 to know about the marriage through his parents-in-1aw. He also admitted that he never talked to the accused before marriage. As seen from the admission made by PW.2, his evidence is ciear that he did not attend the marriage, hence the allegation of paying a dowry amount and also paying Rs.8,000/- by seliing his bullock, cannot be believed. g. PW.4 stated that there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/ . PW.4 is the brother of PW.2 and a resident of Marur Village. Neither PW.1, nor PW.2 stated about any demand of r., additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-.

10. PW.5 is the inquest panchanama witness, who stated that there were rope marks on the neck ofthe deceased. 1 1. PW.6 is the resident of Miryalaguda village. She is the elder sister of PW.2. In her statement, she stated that Rs.1,50,000/- additional dowry was demanded by the accused.

12. It is not the case of PW. 1, who lodged the complaint, nor PW.2- father of the deceased, that there was demand for Rs.1,50,000/-' As discussed above, PWs. 1,2,4,and 6 are close relatives. PW.2-father of the deceased, did not even attend the marriage of the deceased f :t" 5 and his evidence of giving additional dowry of Rs.B,OOO/- by selling his bullocks was stated for the first time in the Court

13. PWs.4 and 6 are the brother and sister of PW.2. They came up with an allegation of demand of Rs. 1,50,000 I - by thc accused, which is not the case of other rvitnesses PWs.7 and 2

14. PW.S is the Tahasildar, who conducted scene of offence panchanama. He does not mention about the presence of any police personnel when the scene of offence panchanama was conducted by ?

15. The prosecution has not examined the police ofhcer who went to the scene. The only police personnel examined by the prosecution, 1S PW.9, who stated that he has taken up the investigation on

15.03.2008. What happened in between 25.O2.2OO8, i.e., the date of lodging complaint and 15.03.2008, is not stated by any of the police ofhcials. PW.9 states that he recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 and recorded their statements on 22.O3.2OO8, which is nearly 26 days after the complaint was filed. In his cross-examination, PW.9 stated that he did not examine any neighbours of the accused, nor any elders of the village where the accused and deceased were living, I I i i I l l / 6 and not a single person was examined from the village where the deceased iived.

16. PWs.2, 4, and 6 have no knowledge about any of the incidents They did not speak about either going to the village of the deceased at any point of time, or there being any demand made by the appellants at any point of time. The only evidence is that of PW. 1. According to him, the information regarding the demand of dowry was given by the deceased. The appellants never directly demanded any amount. Even PW. 1, during the course of trial, has developed the version that a Panchayat was held, however, no one was examined to speak about any such Panchayat being held.

17. The evidence of PWs.L,2, 4, and 5 is totally discrepant and contradictory. Witnesses have stated evidence contradicting one another and came up with a new version of demand of dowry. The evidence of witnesses cannot be considered for the reasons discussed

18. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants/Al and A2, and both the accused stand acquitted d 1 19 . Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Addl.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.1,44 of 2009, dated 21 .12.2011. Since the appellants/Al and A2 are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, ,J

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cdm-Vll Additional Disirict and Sessions Judge at IVahabubnagar (with records, if any)

2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, [\4ahabubnagar District 3. The Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad I By Special Messenger ]

4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District 5. The Superintendent, Central Jail (Women), Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 6. The Station House Officer, Bhoothpur PS; lvlahabubnagar 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] B. One CC to Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, Legal Aid Counsel [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies Vtugh w ,8 -( ,}, HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 C :{ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.6 ot 2012 -i .\t' c. iA r. k { 2 0 APn 2025 * OI snai cH gO J 4l * ALLOWING THE CRLA V- ,r{d Yr- 6et €