Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... vs Konakalla Pulla Rao, Khammam And Anr., on 6 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.983 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment in S.C No.496 of 2010 dated 11.01.2011 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of A1. The marriage of A1 and the deceased was performed on 20.03.2003 and they were living in Mandalapally village. They had two male children. A1 was working as a car driver and the deceased was a health worker. At the time of marriage, Rs.80,000/- cash, gold and silver ornaments were given. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the step-father and brother of the deceased. Four months prior to the complaint, both A1 and a2 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry and a car. Unable to bear the harassment, deceased earlier tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on to herself. However, on 26.01.2010, the deceased 2 consumed some unknown tablets and shifted to the hospital. There she died.
3. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 Telugu written complaint on 26.01.2010 at 2.00 p.m. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered crime and thereafter took up investigation. Police went to the scene of offence and conducted panchanama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were concluded and body was sent for postmortem examination. Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.8 and according to the FSL report, the death was on account of consumption of over dose of benzodiazepine tablets.
4. Charge sheet was laid against A1 and A2 for the offences mentioned supra. Learned Sessions Judge, having recorded evidence of the witnesses and also considering the facts of the case found that both A1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences alleged. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are as follows:
i) A1 and A2 were living separately, as such, the question of A2 demanding amount from the deceased cannot be believed. 3
ii) According to P.W.2, he went and saw the deceased after he received information from A1 and he was informed by the deceased that she consumed Malaria tablets. However, according to P.W.5/Doctor, by the time he saw the deceased she was already unconscious. However, P.W.2, who visited the hospital after the Doctor/P.W.5 examined her, stated that she was in conscious state and informed P.W.2 that she swallowed some tablets and she was having remaining tablets in her bag. However, the said tablets were not seized by the police.
iii) Even the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 are contradictory regarding the statements made by the deceased since by the time the deceased was taken to the hospital, she was unconscious and later died.
iv) P.W.4, who is an independent witness, his evidence cannot be believed since he had given version which is contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
v) The deceased who is a health worker had overdose of malaria tablets which would go to show that she has indulged in self-medication.4
5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another1, 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 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.
6. 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.
1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5 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. 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."
7. There are no specific allegations that are leveled against A1 and A2 regarding the harassment that was meted out pursuant to the alleged demand of additional dowry and for a car. The deceased was working as a health worker and she was in possession of malaria tablets. According to the trial Court judge, it appears that she had taken self-medication which was overdose of malaria tablets. Further, the version given by P.W.2 that the deceased informed him for the reason of consuming tablets, she could not be believed in the light of the evidence of P.W.5/Doctor. There are no 6 compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:06.11.2024 kvs