Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Kappera Ramulamma on 29 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 26.04.2023 in S.C.No.180 of 2021, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The offences alleged against the respondents/ accused are punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 married the deceased. At the time of marriage, three tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver and a motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- as dowry was promised to be given. However, gold and silver was given, but, motorcycle was not given. For the said reason, there was ill treatment of the deceased for fulfilling the promise of giving the motorcycle. One day prior to her death, the deceased went to the house of her parents and narrated the ill treatment. Accordingly, on the next day, the parents came to know about the death of the deceased by committing suicide by drowning. 2
3. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs 1 to 17 and marking Ex.P1 to P18 found that the accused have not committed any offence and acquitted them on the following reasons:
i) There is no evidence of passing on the alleged three tulas of gold and 20 tulas of silver.
ii) The accused and the deceased and her family survives from begging which is their only source of income and no other source of income is shown to prove that dowry was passed.
iii) PW2, younger sister of the deceased and PWs 3 and 4, relatives of the deceased, though stated that the deceased was ill treated, they admitted that they did not have any personal knowledge about any such harassment.
iv) None of the witnesses spoke about any specific incident regarding the harassment or demand for additional dowry.
v) PW5 turned hostile and PWs 6, 7 and 8 did not speak anything about the dowry given at the time of marriage except stating that there was a demand.
4. On the basis of the said findings, learned Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against the accused. 3
5. The Appellate Court in cases of acquittal cannot interfere unless the findings are contrary to the record or reasons given lack prudence.
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, 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.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 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:1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
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."
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a presumption which arises under Sections 113 and 113-B of the Evidence Act that any death within seven years is on account of the harassment.
9. Though there is a presumption under the Evidence Act, however, the prosecution has to lay foundation to draw such 5 presumption. In the absence of any tangible or direct evidence to lay foundation regarding the harassment of the deceased, the question of drawing such presumption does not arise.
10. In the absence of any evidence regarding harassment of the deceased and all the witnesses having no personal knowledge about such alleged harassment, only on the basis of the death of the deceased being unnatural, there cannot be any reversal of the judgment of acquittal, which is a well reasoned and on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2023 gvl 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2023 29.11.2023 gvl