Prosecutor High Court · 2025

registered il crirrre in FIR No.34 of 2Oll for the offence u nder Section 304-8 IPC € gainst the accused and investigated into th(, matter and upon comple tion of investigation, they laid charge-sheet in PRC No.6 of 2Ol I for 1.h e offences under Sections 304-8, 498-A, 2O1 IPC and Sections 3 a.td ,1 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accr:sed Nos. 1 to 4, who are the husband, in-laws and sister-in-law of the deceased. l After taking cognizance for the offences alleged in the charge-sheet' the trial court proceeded with the trial by completing all procedural aspects and assigning sessions case number i'e' SC No'449 of 2011' During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs' 1 to 12 are exaririned and documents in Exs.P1 to Pl2 are marked' On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence is adduced however, English translated engagement certificate with its original in Telugu language is marked as Ex.D1. Saree pieces of the deceased were marked as MOs'1 and 2'

4. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire materia1 available, the trial Court holding that within seven years of the marriage, the deceased committed suicide at the place where the wife and husband are living and though the accused/husband contended that due to the ill-treatment of her parents and other family members, hiswifecommittedsuicide,hefailedtosubstantiatethesameby adducing cogent and plausible evidence, found the accused No'1 guilty' convicted him under Section 235(21 Cr 'P 'C', and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,OO0/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-8 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a hne of Rs'1'OOO/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offe1gg-gnr{er Section 20 t tPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous irnprlsonment for five years anri to pay a hne of Rs.15,OO0/- in default to suffer simple imprisonmr:r t f()r one year for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act and also se:nlenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for rtne year and to pay a fine of lts.10,000/- in default to suffer simple implisonment for one year for tht: offence under Section 4 of DP Act orderir-rg to run all the sentenct s (x)ncurrently by setting off the remand p':riod if any. However, the trial Court found the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty for the offences und:r Sections 498-4, 304-8 and 2OI IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act encl eLcquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.t.l.

5. Aggrie' 'ed by the frndings of the trial Court in ct ,nvicting the appellant/l\1, zrs; stated above, the appellant preferred the present criminal apl,eal mainly contending that the trlal Courl against the weight of evi ler.c:e and probabilities of case, has erroneour;ly convicted him basing , rn t:re surmises and conjectures and also the interested, inconsisten t ar-rrl discrepant testimony of prosecution witn,:sses mainly PWs.l ard 2. The trial Court failed to consider the iact of non- availabililv of r:.,,e witnesses to substantiate the prose,:ution case. There is nc, ripe,l.fic allegation against the appellant that LLe meted out \ \ harassment ,o the deceased/wife. The trial Court failed to consider the '! fact that tlrr re is no practice of dowry prevaiied in the caste of the parties. The trial Court also lailed to speciSr the fatal asper:t of cause of death of the leceased. While submitting the 4b.pve grouncls, the learned counsel for the aPPellant NarayanamurthY Vs.State relied upon the decisions rendered in of Karnataka and anoth611, $tate of AndhraPradeshVs.M.MadhusudhanRao2,HarjitSinghVs.Stateof Punjabs, State ofAndhra Pradesh Vs' M'Madhusudhan 1146+' Naresh Kudar Vs.State of Haryanas, Narayanamurthy Vs' State of Karnataka and another6, order of this Court in WP Nos'62103 & 11387 of2O1r5 and Charan Singh Alias Charaajit Singh Vs' State of uttaraLhandT. while relying upon the above referred rulings, the iearned counsel for the appellant contended that when there is no proof for demand for dowry prior to death of the deceased' mere harassment cannot be sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide, harassment unless committed for purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc , does not amount to cruelty' only in the event of establishing crueity or harassment by a husband towards his wife for dowry prior to death then only a legal hction can be created under Section 304-8 IPC in the absence of such crucial ingredients' the deathofawornanCannotbecalledasadowrydeathandwhenthe contradictory statements are made by the prosecution witnesses the { / ' AIR 2oo8 Supreme Court 2377 'zoottz) nLn (crt.) 917 (sc) r 12006; 1 SuPreme Court Cases 463 o 2oo8(2) ALD (crl.) 917 (sc) t tlozit 3 SuDreme Court Cases 573 u elR 2ooE srpt".e Cortn237'1 Supreme Coun ' nlx. 2023 Supreme Court 2095 husband and his parents cannot be convicted basing on the omnibus and general a.legation creating a mar on their reputation.

6. Per co rtra learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed the p rese nt criminal appeal mainly contending thar evidence of prosecution v itnesses categorically testifred the harassmenL meted out to the deceasr:d rrL the hands of the accused and hence, thcr trial Court had rightly bund the appellant guilty while acquitting the other accused ancl rer <:e, rt can be safely held that there is no p,erversit5r or, inlirmiff in t re lrndings of the trial Court and hence, tht: said well- versed hndin5,s (zrnnot be disturbed basing on the general and shaky grounds pu.: [ort]r through this appeal. Stating thus, he sought for dismissal of tl Le plesent criminal appeal. 7 . This Oc urt perused the entire material available on record and the decisions relied upon by the leatned counsel for the zrppellant. In the light of t re rival contentions put-forth by either side this Court proceeded rvit r rtr appreciation of the evidence adduced on troth sides.

8. The case of the complainant/PW1 from the inception and put- forth throuSlh l-rir; evidence and also Ex.P1/complaint rs that the marriage of a :cu sed No. 1 and his deceased sister was pe rformed on

14.O5.2OO4 b1 giving gold and silver ornaments substantially and also spending hlrg e money towards marriage expenses and r.lso paying Rs.SO,OOO/- to ar:r:used No. 1 to meet t-he marriage expenses from their '1:.1r'. h* ffifr::. itk*, ir}' *!t" itt::,... a I I I l I l side and after reaching his sister to her matrimonial house, all the accused started harassing suspecting her chastity, tt-rey don't even paci$, their lust for additional amounts even after giving a land admeasuring 83 Sq.Yards to the accused No.l and gold and money given on the occasions when two children were born to the couple and hence, after several incidents, the couple have set-up a separate family at Chintal Basthi where her husband continued his harassment. In that view of the matter, having vexed with such mental and physical torture and harassment, his deceased sister committed suicide by hanging on 18.O1.2011. It is also the evidence of PWl that on the fateful day of death of his sister, the brother of accused No. 1 called PW1 and stated that his sister was not taking food for the last three days and hence asked PW1 to come to settle the issue. Accordingly, after informing the same to his parents, while PWl was about to start, meanwhile they received another call from accused informing death of his sister. After reaching the spot, when PW1 asked the accused as to how his sister died, accused stated that she slipped and fell down on the ground and died but on his verihcation he found a ligature mark on the neck of deceased accordingly, on suspicion he lodged a complaint with police. g. PW2 is the mother of PWl ald deceased and her evidence also went on the same lines as deposed by PW 1 ' PW3 a resident of Puranapool of Hyderabad and acted as a witness for Ex'P2 scene of ;)> - offence panclran zLma turned hostile and during his cross-cxamination, he denied t.h: suggestion put by learned additional public prosecutor that he obserued a ligature mark over the dead body. PW4 a resident of Chintal Bast ri :red acted as a witness for panchanama ,rnder Ex.P3 turned hor;t le and during his cross-exarnination he denied the suggestion cf 1e;lrned additional public prosecutor thal- they have observed the saree, which was used by the deceased for hanging. PW5 a resident o I C:hintal Basthi and acted as a witne ss fbr scene of panchanama malked under Ex.P4 turned hostile and during his cross- examination hc rlenied a suggestion put by learned additional public prosecutor tL at police seized pieces of saree from the scene of offence. PW6 is a r€)s den[ of Banjara Hills and worked in the shop of accused No.1 and on -8,()1.2O1 1 at about 11.00 a.m., when accusecl No. 1 asked him to bring thi keys from his house he went to the hous;e and since nobody op<:n ed rle door, he saw inside the house an<l found the deceased wils harLging. During cross-examination PW6, stat.ed that flrst he informecl ,he lact of hanging of deceased to the brothr:r of A! viz. Vishwanath, lncl upon his instructions, PW6 informed the same to the accused No.1 anc upon closing the shop, when accused No.1 and PW6 came to the: ;pot there were four to Iive persons gathered and doctor was also pres3nt and the dead body was laid on the ground.

10. PW7 .w, rrk,:,1 as Deputy Tahsildar and on l9.Ol .2011, upon the request of thr: poJice, she proceeded to Osmania General l[ospital and '!, r:i:i, ii.i,,i.i i{j{}* oii{+.r ES, lll': l l I ,l :-) examined the dead body in the presence of two panch witnesses and blood ielatives and Ex.Ps inquest report was prepared. PW9 is one of the witnesses to trx.P5. PW8 worked as Associate Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and on 19.01.2O11 on the request of MRO, he conducted PME over the dead body and issued Ex.P6 opining the cause of death as hanging' PW1O is the photographer, who had taken the photographs of the dead body. PWl1 is the SI of Police, PS, Saifabad, who registered Ex'P7 FIR upon receiving Ex.P1 complaint from PWl and upon observing the dead body and prepared Ex.P8 scene of offence with the help of mediators and got photographed the scene of offence under Ex.P9 photos and also the dead body under Ex.P1O. PW12 is the ACP of PS, Saifabad, investigated the matter and laid charge-sheet. During cross- examination he denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the accused that due to frustration only the deceased wife committed suicide.

11. The accused tried to convince the Court stating that though the parents and family members of the deceased had knowledge that the deceased wife became pregnant, they did not visit her ald hence, having developed depression and feeling humiliation, she committed suicide and that the accused never demanded or harassed her for dowry or additional dowry and that the accused are not responsible for death of tJle deceased but PWs. 1 and 2 and their family memb*ers are held res portsible for death of the deceased. Hou'ever, the accused did not nra ke any whisper in this regard during their examination under Secti >n 313 Cr.P.C., which fact makes the above rlefence as an afterthough -. Irurther, accused No.l failed to substantiate the said version by v.av of adducing any form of evidence. Further, accused No.1 though sta .ed before the trial Court during his examination under Section 3-r3 Cr.P.C., that he would hle a written stateme:rt, he did not hle the sam:.

12. Thc rroposition of law is very clear under Sectir:'n 304(8) IPC that where thc death of a woman is caused by any br. Lrns or bodily injury or o:curs ottrerwise than under normai circumstances within seven years of trer marriage and it is.shown that soon be.:ore her death she was st bjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative ol -rer husband for, or in connection with, an g demand for dowry, suclr dr:rrth shall be called "dowry death", and su< h husband or relative strall be deemed to have caused her death.

13. Whr:r the factual matrix of the case on hand are ke:nly observed, admittedllr the death of the deceased is not a normal one and she committe<l suicide by hanging herself and the said fact is very much evident frore the evidence of PWs.6 to 9 and trxs.P5 and P6, which are inquest relror'- and post-mortem report. Further, thc marriage of accused Nr,. 1 irnd the deceased took place on 14.05..1004 ald the deceased diecl on 18.01.2011. Hence, it is safe-vouch to s;ay technicaily , Page l0 that the death of the deceased was within the period of seven years fiom her marriage. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act' having regard to all the other circumstances of the case' that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. When the evidence of PWs'l and 2 is evaluated' they have categorically depicted the mental and physical harassment meted out to the deceased. The accused could not elicit anything from their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence in this regard'

14.UnderSection2ofDowryProhibitionAct,',dowry'.meansany property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after ttre marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal l'aw (Shariat) applies' ,.a ..' ''.ti

15.Whenthefactsofcaseonhandareperusedcoupledwiththe evidenbe of PWs.1 and 2, it is borne out of the record that though there is no pra<:t ce cf giving dowry in their caste, on demand, at the time of marriage, tre parents of deceased gave 4 tulas of gold, IIs.SO,OOO/- to the accuse C 1.() meet the expenditure for clothes, wa1 ch and other articles, su bsecluently at the time of giving birth to tr.n-o children they have paid Ils.I {),000/- on each occasion and also gave gold of one tula ald one irl !d .1alf tulas respectively on those two occasions and they also beque,rtheC a house site admeasuring 83 Sq.Yards;. As per the evidence of PW,s. 1 and 2 the above mentioned amounts end gifts were not given vrlurlarily but they were given on demand b1' the accused. Therefore he rlemand of the accused for the said gifts and amounts would attrz ct tJre ingredients of Section 2 of DP Act nanting the same as'dowry".

16. Whr:r the manoeuvre of the accused is observed, immediately after the i:rciclr:nt, the accused without informing the same to the police, havt rer-roved the body from hanging and laid the same on the floor and sl.iftrxl the body to Sathanagalli where the parents of accused No.1 resicle 1. Iiurther, accused No. 1 tried to camouflage the cause of death of der:eas,:d a:nd stated to PW1 that the deceased fell down on the floor and d ecl The said acts of the accused amount tr.r scrapping of evidence. fht: said fact is very much evident from the evidence of PWs.l anrl 12 PW12 stated that he conducted pancha namas at two piaces whele tL.e deceased committed suicide and to wl.Lich place the dead body-t ,as s;hifted I :-

17. It is true that there could not have been aly direct evidence to establish the atrocities, if any, committed by the husband against the deceased wife within four corners of matrimonial home. It is difhcult to prove the same try way of direct evidence including examination of eye witriesses. As per the evidence of PWl it is revealed that the deceased was not taking food for the last three days prior to the incident and hence, he was asked to come to pacify the issue. As per the case of the prosecution and evidence of PWs. 1 ar-Ld 2 it is evident that doubting the chastity of the deceased suspecting her illicit intimacy with another person, accused No.1 shifted their family to another place and they both were living there. The above circumstances clearly go to show that there were some skirmishes between the couple and that their marital life was not sailing in smooth water.

18. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, when his wife committed suicide, it is the bounden duty of the accused No. 1/husband to provide medical aid if requires and to complain the'same to the police concerned. But in the case on hand, accused have not taken such i steps and instead they have shifted the body from the scene of offence without waiting for arrival of t].e parents of the deceased or the police and failed to give proper explanation for doing such thing' The said act proves the intention of the accused to cause disappearance of the \ evidence. .- r._ 'r 19 . Wher the above factual matrix are taken into cons .deration, this Court can safetJ, held that the trial Court had found the aupellant guilty for the offr:nces, as stated supra, upon considering t he facts and circumstan,:es of the case as well as the evidence let in atrd hence, this Court sees r)o i1,:rparent error or perversitSr in the said find;ngs. Hou,e zer. taking into consideration the fact th at since the occurrence of ;ncident i.e. from the year 2O11 the appellant has been roaming arc und the Courts to defend himself from the prosecution case by facing rn lnt;1[ agony, trauma and physical incarceration, treating the \. said facts a s sJrecial circumstances, basing on the prop,rsition of law laid down ty the Hon'ble Apex Court in VK Verma Vs.Ccntral Bureau of Investigationr, Raj Kumar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar l'arlav Vs. State of Bihare and Rrrvinder Vs. State of MPr0 this Court feels it appropriate to take a lenient vien. in favour of the appellant by reducing the period of imprisonrrLe rt rtwarded against him for all the counts while upholding the line an Lour: t. Accordingly, the period of imprisonn.rent imposed against the apFreliant for all the offences is reducerd sr:ntencing the appellant tc unCergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrendr'. Tbe period of imprisonment, if any, alreadl. r-rndergone by the appellar rt shall be given set off under Section 42U Cr.p.C. The 8 (2014) 3 Supren e Court Cases 485 " (2006) 9 Suprcn ,- Cou.t Cases 589 '0t2006t 9 Srp,e, re (',nrn Cases 590 r' - i.a. irl' :...-.-- d appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining period of sentence. The bail bonds of the appellant, if any, stand cancelled.

20. Except the above modifrcation in respect of the period of imprisonment, the present criminal appeal is dismissed on al1 other aspects.

21. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications if any pending shall also stand dismissed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Chief lvletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad i. ff," V nOOitional Metropolitdn Sessioni Judge (lviahila Court) at Hyderabad e. Th" Station House Offiier, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad 4. The Suoerintendent, Cherlapally Central Jail, R.R.District 5. One CC to [vl/s Khai'z Vizarath Ali , Advocate (OPqC) O. i*o CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. Two CD Copies Ks/gh w Hyderabad.(OUT) i I i I I t .:{ HIGH COLIRT' DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.7'26 of 2014 Dismissing the Crl.A cO \o rf{ ( G itx: ,,.l J c () Ji'-]'i.' { 0 1 APri 20; 5 , r,''r:SNAI * c a[-' |; (\ o {+