Telangana High Court
S Saibaba Goud Died vs Palle Trishulnath Goud , Trishul Gaud, on 22 November, 2023
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.02.2023 in S.C.No.381 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Medchal.
2. The appellant is representing Suraram Saibaba Goud, who died and the de-facto complainant in the appeal against acquittal. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 were tried for the offence under Section 304 of IPC and by judgment dated 06.02.2023, the appellants were found not guilty.
3. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused is that the appellant cannot prosecute the appeal since he does not fit into the description of a victim as per the definition under Section 2(w) of Cr.P.C. As such, the question of filing an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. It is for the State to prefer an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. 2
4. Under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., a victim will have a right to prefer an appeal against any order acquitting the accused or convicting the accused for lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The victim is defined under Section 2(w) (a) of Cr.P.C. The victim means a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and will include a guardian or legal heir.
5. This Court in D.Sudhakar v. Panapu Srinivasulu 1 , held that the brother of the deceased cannot be a legal heir. However, the said judgment is impliedly overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka 2.
6. The facts of the case are that the deceased was married to A-1 and at the time of marriage, 12,00,000/- cash, gold and household articles were given as dowry. For six months, they lived happily. However, the husband and in-laws started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. About one year back, father of the deceased purchased a plot for 1 2013 Crl.Law Journal 2764 (AP) (DB) 2 2019 2 SCC 752 3 Rs.20,00,000/- and got registered in the name of the deceased. Since then, the accused were harassing the deceased to sell away the plot and give money. The deceased was carrying pregnancy and gave birth to a male child. She remained in the house of her parents for about 5 months. On 13.10.2013, A-1 went to his in-laws, he took the deceased and the child for Dasara festival. On the very same day, the deceased called on telephone and informed that she was being harassed. At 1:30 a.m., information was received on telephone that the deceased jumped from the 1st floor of the house along with new born child. After reaching the hospital, it was informed that both the deceased and the baby died.
7. On the basis of the complaint, the Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
8. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds:-
(i) P.W.1/mother of the deceased had admitted in her evidence that all the presentations made at the time of marriage were in accordance with customs of the community. Since the presentations were customary, 4 Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not attracted to consider the said presentations as dowry.
(ii) P.W.1 stated that the income of her husband is Rs.20,000/- per month and they were not having any source to give such huge amount of cash and gold ornaments. P.W.1 failed to substantiate as to how the alleged amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was generated.
(iii) P.W.2/grandfather also could not state as to how the amount was generated which P.W.1 claimed to have given at the time of marriage.
(iv) P.W.4 who is the Uncle of the deceased stated that he does not know the sources of funds.
(v) Witnesses did not have any personal knowledge about the alleged harassment.
(vi) The prosecution has failed to prove that there was any kind of harassment by the accused soon before the death for any dowry. No such allegation was made for the Court to infer that there was any harassment in proximity to the alleged suicide.
(vii) P.W.1 at no point of time had not stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment till her death.
(viii) The deceased never stayed with in-laws.
Whenever A-1 went out of Station, she stayed with her 5 parents. The deceased never gave any information about alleged harassment to PW1 or others.
(ix) The only allegation which witnesses claim to be the reason for the suicide is accused were harassing to sell the plot which was purchased in the name of the deceased. There was never any demand for purchase of plot by accused. A1 had proved that he had adjusted an amount of Rs.4,15,000/- for purchasing the plot.
(x) A-1 gave an amount of nearly Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs after marriage to the mother-in-law /P.W.1 and family.
(xi) The prosecution failed to establish that there was harassment and in the said circumstances, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked. It is for the prosecution to lay foundation to prove harassment.
(xii) None of the witnesses had stated about their personal knowledge regarding the alleged harassment by the accused and their evidence is hearsay.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge has to be reversed as it was specifically averred by P.Ws.1 to 4 that the deceased was constantly harassed by the accused. 6 Though A-1 stayed in Delhi, they returned to Hyderabad and stayed in Hyderabad. Even on the day prior to her death, the deceased had called and informed on phone that the accused were harassing her for additional dowry.
10. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the accused that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on the evidence adduced during trial. The grounds for acquittal are reasonable and in the said circumstances, only for the reason of their being another view, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed.
11. Learned Sessions Judge had found that whatever witnesses had stated during the course of chief examination was negatived during the course of cross-examination. The witnesses had admitted that they did not have personnel knowledge regarding any kind of harassment. The death of the victim cannot form basis to infer there was harassment soon before the death unless evidence is brought on record by prosecution suggesting harassment in proximity with death.
12. To reverse an order of acquittal, compelling reasons have to be shown or that the trial court had not appreciated 7 the facts in proper perspective and had given reasons which lack prudence.
13. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 3 , held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
14. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:3
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 8
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
15. Since the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record and probable. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal. Though in a given case, if another view is possible that accused might have committed an offence, however in an appeal against acquittal, if the view taken by the trial Court is probable and reasonable, though a second view can be taken, the appellate Court cannot take such view to reverse the order of acquittal. 9
16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.11.2023 dv