Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs Thatipamula Ravi Kumar, And 2 Others, on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.492 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, in S.C.No.327 of 2005 dt.30.11.2006, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased marriage was performed with A1 with a dowry of Rs.60,000/-. However, only Rs.30,000/- was given at the time of marriage. The main allegation is that for the remaining Rs.30,000/- which was promised at the time of marriage, the accused started harassing her. Unable to bear the said harassment, she committed suicide.
4. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused on the ground that the allegation of harassment was spoken to by PWs.1 to 4. However, they have given different timings. PWs.1 and 4 say that it was three months after the marriage, PW2 says that it was 15 days, PW3 says that it was one month after the marriage. Further, there was discrepancy about abusing the 2 deceased for not getting dowry. Each of the witnesses had given different places of such harassment. Further, as on the date of the deceased consuming poison for committing suicide, it was at the residence of her parents. The learned Sessions Judge further found that no specific reasons were given by the prosecution witnesses as to why the deceased was staying at her parents house. There was no incident that was narrated immediately prior to the consumption of poison by the deceased. Collectively considering of the said discrepancies and exaggeration made by the witnesses during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has also caused prejudice to the accused. The Investigating Officer was summoned twice. Since he did not appear, his evidence was closed. Again on application by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., summons were issued to the Investigating Officer. Even then, the Investigating Officer did not appear of which reason his evidence was closed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is consistent regarding the demand that was made. However, they have given different timings. Such different timing is of no consequence when the crux of the allegation regarding demand was spoken to by PWs.1 to 4. 3 Further, when the witnesses have stated regarding the harassment, non-examination of Investigating Officer is of no consequence. However, the learned sessions Judge had given much importance to non-examination of Investigating Officer which is incorrect.
6. Though, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer, the acquittal was not recorded only on the ground of such non- examination. Several discrepancies regarding the demand and harassment which go to the root of the case were elicited during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 4. On account of such discrepancies and exaggerations which were made by the witnesses during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that the Investigating Officer ought to have been examined to confront him with the said omissions, contradictions and exaggerations.
7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 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.
8. 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. 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. 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
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."
9. In the present facts of the case, I do not find any infirmity when the findings of harassment, demand are contradictory to one another. Further, the incident of suicide had taken place in the house of the parents of the deceased. There is no incident that is narrated soon prior to the death. Unless it is proved by the prosecution, that in proximity with death, there was demand for dowry or unlawful demand that was made and pursuant to such unlawful demand there was harassment, the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied.
10. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable on the basis of evidence. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.
11. Accordingly, the State appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 23.04.2024 tk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.492 OF 2013 Dt. 23.04.2024 tk