Telangana High Court
Smt.Ujala Sareen vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.445, 500 and 501 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) These Criminal Appeals are preferred by accused No.1 and the complainant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.09.2020 in S.C.No.342 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy.
2. Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2020 is preferred by accused No.1 questioning his conviction under Section 302 of IPC. Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 are preferred by the de facto complainant/mother of the deceased, questioning the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2020, appellant/complainant in Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State in all the criminal appeals. Perused the record.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 was married to Reetu Sareen (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), 2 on 30.04.2013. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, gold ornaments, household articles, etc., were given as dowry. The deceased was working as Air Hostess and continued her job even after the marriage. A son was born to the couple during November, 2014. The allegation against the accused No.1 is that he was harassing the deceased, along with his mother/accused No.2 (acquitted accused). PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, PW.2 is the father of the deceased, and PW.3 is the sister of the deceased. All three of them have stated about the harassment of the deceased by the accused for additional dowry.
5. The incident happened on 19.04.2015. The accused No.1 called PW.1 on phone and informed her that the deceased was facing difficulty in breathing. Both PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused No.1 at Ramanthapur. The deceased and the accused No.1 had shifted to the house at Ramanthapur, 10 months prior to the incident. When PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused No.1, they were informed that she was shifted to Matrix Hospital at Ramanthapur, and the deceased was declared as dead. PWs.1 and 2 observed that blood was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased, and they suspected that the death was homicidal. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the police on 20.04.2015, at 10.00 A.M. Having received the 3 Telugu written complaint, the Inspector of Police/PW.19, who was the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division, took up investigation.
6. PW.19 went to the scene of offence, and also proceeded to the mortuary of the Gandhi Hospital, where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Having concluded the inquest in the presence of the independent witnesses, the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Initially, the post-mortem examination was conducted on the same day, i.e., on 20.04.2015 by PW.16. PW.19 again gave a requisition for re-post-mortem examination. Accordingly, the second post-mortem examination was done on 21.04.2015. The external injuries and internal injuries that were found on the body of the deceased are as follows:
"External Injuries:
1. Abrasion of 1/2 * 1 cm was present over left zygomatic area of cheek, brownish red in colour.
2. A vertical abraded contusion of 4 * 3 cm was present over left temple area brownish red in colour.
3. Contusion of 7 * 5 cm was present across the nose on both sides.
4. Contusion right zygomatie area was present in an area of 5 * 2 cms.
5. Multiple ant-bite marks were present at various places like feet, shoulder and abdomen which are post mortem in nature.
Internal Injuries:
4
6. Contusion of scalp over middle and back of the head more towards left occipital was present in an area of 10*6 cm brownish red in colour.
7. Beneath the injury there is a corresponding contusion of 7*5 cm on occipital bony proper.
8. Sub arachnoid Hemorrhage of 13 x 11 cm was present over left occipital parietal area of brain.
9. Diffuse contusion of inner and posterior chest wall was present in an area of 35 x 12 cm extending to lower abdomen dark red in colour.
10. Left in over pelvic wall was contused in an area of 4 x 3 cms dark red in colour.
11. The approximate time of death is within 48 hours prior to post mortem examination.
12. The final opinion for the cause of death to the best of my knowledge and belief was due to "Head injury"
Ex. P14 is the PME report given by me."
7. PW.16 conducted the first post-mortem examination, and PW.17 is one of the three doctors, who conducted the re-post- mortem examination on 21.04.2015. Both the doctors who conducted the post-mortem examinations have given reports regarding the death of the deceased as on account of 'Head Injury'. There are no variations in the findings of the post-mortem examination reports, which are Exs.P13 and P14 respectively, performed on 20.04.2015 and 21.04.2015.
8. Since the cause of the death of the deceased was due to head injury and the incident happened in the house of the appellant, the Investigating Officer/PW.19 effected the arrest of 5 accused No.1 and accused No.3, who is the friend of accused No.1, on 23.04.2015. Both accused Nos.1 and 3 were remanded to judicial custody after their confessional statements were recorded. Accused No.2, who is the mother of the appellant/accused No.1, was issued a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., since the investigation revealed that the deceased was subjected to harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.19 having examined the witnesses and collecting the documents, filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3.
9. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused No.1 under Section 302 of IPC, alternatively under Section 304(B) and 406 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further accused No.2 was charged under Section 498-A of IPC. Accused No.3 was charged under Section 202 of IPC for omitting to give information regarding the commission of offence.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.3 was present in the house when the appellant/accused No.1 assaulted the deceased, resulting in her death.
6
11. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses and considering both the oral and documentary evidence, found that the accused No.1 was in the house when the incident took place and he was not in a position to discharge his burden that shifted on to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, accused No.1 was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted for the other offences. Accused No.2 was acquitted mainly on the ground that she was living separately and omnibus allegations were leveled against her. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case under Section 202 of IPC against accused No.3 and acquitted/accused No.3.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1 would submit that the trial Court has committed an error in invoking the provision under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. No where has the prosecution placed any evidence to suggest that the death was on account of any intentional assault by accused No.1. In fact, accused No.1 was not present in the house when the incident took place, and the death of the deceased being accidental cannot be ruled out.
13. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava v. 7 State of Gujarat 1. He further argued that if the presence of the accused No.1 is believed and if the accused No.1 is held responsible for the injuries received, the offence would fall under Section 304-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
7. This Court in Dhirendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand 2015 SCC OnLine SC 163 has laid down the parameters which are to be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC, which are the following:
(a) The circumstances in which the incident took place;
(b) The nature of weapon used;
(c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot;
(d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body;
(e) The amount of the force used.
(f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight;
(g) Whether there was any previous enmity;
(h) Whether there was any sudden provocation.
(i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion; and
(j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant argued that the acquittal of the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the remaining charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge was totally improper. 1 (2018) 4 SCC 329 8 Accused No.2 harassed the deceased, for which reason, accused No.1 and the deceased started living separately at Ramanthapur. PWs.1 to 3, who are the relatives of the deceased, have clearly stated regarding the harassment of the deceased by accused Nos.1 and 2 for additional dowry. Since the allegation is consistent, such admission for additional dowry squarely falls within the ambit of Section 498-A of IPC. The judgment of the trial Court insofar as accused No.2 is concerned has to be reversed and she has to be convicted under Sections 498-A read with 109 of IPC. The learned counsel further argued that the neighbors have spoken about the presence of accused No.3 in the house when the incident took place. Even according to the neighbors, PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused No.1 after receiving information about the condition of the deceased. In fact, the evidence on record clearly shows that accused No.3, who is friend of accused No.1, is present in the house when the incident took place.
15. It is not disputed that the death was on account of head injury. Both post-mortem examinations that were conducted on 20.04.2015 and 21.04.2015, by the team of doctors, would reveal that there were injuries on the head which were visible, and the cause of death was on account of the internal injuries. The 9 prosecution has not let in any evidence to suggest the manner in which the incident took place or the manner in which accused No.1 assaulted the deceased. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to elicit from the experts the manner in which the incident would have occurred, and an opinion ought to have been taken from the experts stating that the death was on account of the head injury. The probability of receiving the injuries and the manner in which she was injured were not stated either by PWs.16 or 17. Learned counsel further argued that the death could have been accidental.
16. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly invoked the provision under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and shifted the burden on to the appellant/accused No.1 to explain regarding the death of the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 had used any weapon or that any blood was found either on the walls or on the floor in the house where the incident happened. Admittedly, food was found on the floor of the kitchen, which indicates that there was a quarrel between the spouses when the incident of assault occurred. The appellant took a defence and explained in the statement of 313 Cr.P.C examination that the death was 10 accidental and by the time accused No.1 went to the house, he found the deceased lying on the floor and unable to breath.
17. The above said explanation cannot be considered since the food was found on the floor which reflects that there was a quarrel between the spouses, after the appellant entered the house.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lavghanbhai (cited supra), has laid down the parameters which have to be considered while deciding the question of whether the case falls under Section 302 of IPC or under Section 304 of IPC. Admittedly, no weapon was used, and there is no explanation by the prosecution that there was any kind of deliberate assault by the accused No.1 to come to a conclusion that the injuries were caused with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The incident happened in the house and the prosecution has not come up with any evidence to rule out the possibility of a sudden altercation or provocation which led to a fight between the spouses, resulting in the head injury of the deceased. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to convert the conviction of accused No.1 from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC.
19. Insofar as the appeals preferred by the de facto complainant against accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, we have not find any infirmity with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 11 Admittedly, appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased started living separately at Ramanthapur. When they were living separately, it cannot be said that accused No.2 was responsible for any kind of harassment meted out for additional dowry. In cases of acquittal, unless and until there are any compelling circumstances that are shown, the findings of the trial Court do not warrant reversal of the findings of the judgment.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.454 of 2020 is partly allowed by converting the Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC, and accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo seven (7) years of imprisonment. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal, and therefore, Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 are dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ K.SURENDER, J _____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 12.06.2025 PNS 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.445, 500 and 501 of 2020 Dated 12.06.2025 PNS