The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ...Complainant / Respondent Counsel for the Appellants Sri Rettala Balraj Goud Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI WSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1285 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (fier Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This appeal is filed by appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved b1. the judgment, dated 23.70.2077, passed in S.C.No.S of 2077 on the frle of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-,4. of Indian penal Code (for short 'IPC') and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Ar:t. Appellant/accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard lcarned counsel for the appellan.ts and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that pWl is the father-in-law of appellant/accused No.l and father of the deceased. Thc deceased was found engulfed in flames in the house of appcllants at around 5:30 a.m., in the morning on

29.1,2.2014. Fiearing the deceased shouting, PWs.4 and 5 went to the house of appellants, and appellants, with the help of 2 KS, J & JAK,J CrLAh-o.1285 of 2017 PWs.4 and 5 extinguished flames. Immediately the deceased was taken to the hospital. Information was given to PW3 and Pwl. Pwl/father of the deceased was resident of Bangalore. PWI immediately came down to Hyderabad and frled a written complaint/Ex.P1 on the same day,. at 8:00 p.m.

4. According to PWI, his daughter/deceased was married to accused No.1 and they have two sons. At the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- cash and Ac.1.15 guntas ot land artd 5 tulas of gold was given to appellants as dowry. PW1 further stated that for the past four years prior to her death, the appellants were demanding additional dowry and also suspecting the character of the deceased that she was having affair with someone else. Panchayat was conducted in the presence of PWs.l, 3 and others and appellants promised that they would take care of the deceased. However, both the appellants started harassing the deceased and murdered her by burning her with kerosene.

5. The investigating offrcer /PWl7 went to the hospital and conducted inquest panchanama in presence of independent witnesses PWs. 12 and 13 and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW10 and another. On O3.01.2025, the appellants were apprehended. The confession of the appellants was recorded and thereafter they were produced 1,., ,/ 3 KS, J & ]AK,J Crl.A.No.l285 of20l7 before the concerned magistrate and sent to the judicial remand.

6. PW17 sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. PW15 is the postmortem doctor. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was burns.

7. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants mainty on the ground of harassing the deceased for dowry and accused No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IpC for murdering thc deceased. Since deceased received burn injuries in the house of thc appellants, when they were in the house, the learned Sessions judge found that the burden is on the appellants to explain the circumstances under which the deceased received burn injuries. In the absence of any such explanation. the burden that shifted on to the appellants under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, remains unrebutted.

8. l,earned counsel for the appellants would submit that there are no evewitnesses to the incident and all the witnesses are circumstantial witnesses. The witnesses to the seizure and confession, have turned hostile to the prosecut.ion case. There are no specific allegations leveled against the appellants regarding the additional dowry. For the said reason, it cannot be assumed 1,hat there was any motive on the pa_rt of the 4 KS, J & JAK,J CrLANo.l285 of20I7 appellants that they have intentionally committed murder of the deceased.

9. It is not disputed that the deceased received burn injuries in the house of the appellants at 5:30 a.m., in the morning. Hearing the shouts of the deceased, PWs.4 and 5 went to the house of the appellants. According to PWs.4 and 5, the appellants with the help of PWs.4 and 5 extinguished the flames. Though PWs.4 and 5 were present, it is curious that both of them did not ask the deceased the reason for receiving the burn injuries. During the cross examination of PWS, PW5 admitted before the Court that there were 50 persons present in the house by the time he went there. If at all 50 persons were present, the version of PW5 stating that he was present and put off the flames becomes doubtful. More-over, PW5 stated that he and PW3 tried to put off the flames with a blanket. However, PW3 did not state anything about putting off the flames, but he stated that by the time he went to the house of the appellants, he saw the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, he informed PW1 and others.

10. The prosecution has to discharge the iniLial burden of proving that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The act of causing homicidal death must involve premeditation and f-i 5 KS,,& JAK,J Crl ANo.128s of20l7 with the intention of causing death, a person should have done acts having knowledge that such acts would result in death. 1 1. The burns received by the deceased couid be homicidal, suicidal or ar:cidental. During the course of evidence of the prosecution rvitnesses, nothing was elicited to conclusively suggest that death of the deceased was homicidal. Unless the burden is discharged by the prosecution that death was homicidal and the possibility of an accidenta_l or suicidal death is not ruled out, it cannot be assumed that it was homicidal. If there are no cye witnesses to the incident, the events can be reasonably rcr:onstructed or the evidence available at the scene should lend creclibility to the version of the prosecution. Nothing was done by the investigating officer to suggest that death was homicidal, either by collebting evidence at the scene, or in any other manner what so ever. For the said reasons, the Iindings of the learned Sessions Judge, that death was homicidal cannot be accepted.

12. Though the incident happened in the house of the appellants, thc time of incident was around 5:30 a.m. Normally people either wake up or would be sleeping at that time. It is not the case of the neighbours that they hearcl any quarrel in between the appellants and the deceased, the previous night or 6 KS, J & JAK,J Crl.A.No 1285 of2017 just before they heard the deceased shouting. According to PWs.3 and 5, they went there and both of them along with the appeltrants put off flames and the deceased was shifted to the hospital. The appellants did not specifically explain the reason for the.deceased receMng burn injuries, however their defence is that they are not responsible for the deceased receiving burns. As already discussed, the death was unnatural but whether the death was homicidal, suicidai or accidental was not proved by the prosecution.

13. PWs.l, 2,3,6 and 7 have all stated that the appellants were harassing the deceased for additional dowry and panchayat was also held. During panchayat, according to PW3 and others, the appellants alleged that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with some other person. The allegations by the husband or in-laws against wife that she was having affair with some other else would amount to cruelty. Further, the prosecution has also proved that there was demand for additional dowry.

74. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 498-A of iPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against appellant No.1/accused No.1 cannot be disturbed. However appellant No. l/accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence under .+.' I I 7 KS, J & ]AI<,] CrLA.No.l285 of2017 Section 3O2 of IPC. Since the appellant/accused No.1 is on bail, the trial Court shall cause his appearance and send him to jail to serve out remaining part of the sentence, if any. In so far as accused No.2 is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition Act, are reduced to the period already undergone by her.

15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allorved. Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 VA/gh The Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal (with records, lf any) The lll Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class Warangal The Station House Officer, ltrlamnoor PS,.Warangal The Superntendent. Central Jail, Warangal District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Rettala Balraj Goud, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 \ JUDGMENT GRLA.No.1285 ot 2017 /, '{- l. -, 't? 25flAn 2W 7 o of SP^t C Hf--o {r PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA