G.Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam., vs A.Suryanarayana Gupta, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 336 AP

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                   AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
                     Criminal Appeal No.721 of 2014

JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

        The present Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be filed by one G. Padmavathi

(PW1) against the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case

No.322 of 2012 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),

Visakhapatnam. Originally, the accused were tried for the offences

punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 304-B IPC.

2.      The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on

05.02.2011

at about 06:00 PM at Bhavanam Veedhi, Yelamanchili Town,

the accused caused the death of the deceased while she was sleeping.

It is said that Accused No.3 caught hold of the legs; Accused No.4 sat

on the chest; Accused No.2 caught hold of both the hands by

pressuring to the bed; and Accused No.1 put pressure on the neck and

mouth causing the death of the deceased.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

PW1 is the mother, PW2 is the aunt, PW3 is the father and PW4

is the brother of the deceased viz., Nandini. The marriage of the

deceased, who is the daughter of PWs.1 & 3, was performed with

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

Accused No.1, on 01.10.2009. It is said that at the time of marriage, an

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as dowry to Accused No.1 apart

from paying Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.3 and sare samans worth

Rs.1,00,000/- It is said that after marriage, both of them lived happily

for a very short time and thereafter Accused No.1 and his family

members started demanding the deceased to bring additional dowry.

The harassment was to the effect that had Accused No.1 married

another girl, they would have got Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. While

things stood thus, on 25.07.2010, the deceased gave birth to a female

child. After delivery, the accused again started harassing the deceased

on the ground that she gave birth to a female child and that the said

child is dark in complexion. They also demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for

purchase of fax machine. At that time, the father of the deceased

informed the accused that he is not in a position to give so much of

money, but, however advised them to obtain loan by depositing the

degree certificate of the deceased.

On 05.02.2011 at about 12:15 PM, PWs.1, 2 & 4 went to

Yelamanchili to see the deceased. During the said time, they requested

Accused Nos.1 & 3 to send their daughter to their house since the

health of their grand daughter is not good. But they refused to send

the deceased inspite of repeated requests made. At that time, the

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

deceased informed PWs.1 & 3 that if she is not taken with them, there

is every likelihood of her being killed. It is said that while PWs.1,2 & 4

were returning to Visakhapatnam, Accused No.1 telephoned stating

that the deceased went into her room and locked the door from inside.

It is said that though they were knocking the door, there is no response

from inside. Immediately thereafter, neighbors of the deceased also

called PW1 and informed that the deceased committed suicide by

hanging herself to a ceiling fan. On receiving the said information,

PWs.1, 2 & 4 returned to Yelamanchili and lodged a report fixing the

liability on the accused for the death of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the

report. Basing on the said report, PW13, who was working as

Assistant Sub-Inspector, Yelamanchili Town Police Station, registered a

case in Crime No.10 of 2011 of Yelamanchili Town Police Station

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302,

304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Ex.P18 is the FIR. Further investigation in this case was taken up by

PW14, who was working as Additional S.P in Visakhapatnam. He

proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of PW9, prepared

an observation report of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P6. He also

prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P19.

Thereafter, he sent requisition to Mandal Executive Magistrate for

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW10 who was

the Mandal Executive Magistrate at that time, conducted inquest over

the dead body of the deceased on 06.02.2011 from 10:00 AM to 01:00

PM in the presence of PW9 and others and thereafter sent the body for

post mortem examination. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. PW12, who was

working as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, AMC,

Visakhapatnam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased and issued Ex.P15, Post Mortem Certificate. According to the

Doctor, the cause of death was due to Asphyxia due to pressure on

neck. The Doctor also opined that injury No.3 is fatal injury and that

the said injury being a oblique ligature mark, indicates more in favour

of a suicide. PW14 who continued with the investigation arrested the

accused and after collecting all the necessary documents filed a charge

sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.10 of 2011 on the file of the

learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchili.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as

required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the

offences are triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to

the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same

was made over to the Court of the learned VII Additional Sessions

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

Judge, (FTC), Visakapatnam, for trial and disposal in accordance with

law.

5. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred

to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14

and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 and M.Os.1 to 5. After closure of

prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing

against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which

they denied. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.D-1 to D-10 were marked on behalf of the accused.

7. Analyzing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302

and 304-B IPC. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be

filed by PW1, who is the informant in this case.

8. Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would contend that there is absolutely no explanation from

the accused as to how the deceased died. Since the death took place in

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

the house of the accused, a burden is cast upon the accused to explain

as to how the deceased died, more so, in view of Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel took us through the judgment

impugned to indicate that the learned Sessions Judge totally erred in

believing the evidence of a hostile witness while acquitting the

accused. Coming to the evidence of DWs 1 & 2, he would contend that

their evidence cannot be looked into as their presence in the house and

their version of the case as projected, was never suggested to the

prosecution witnesses. Since the death took place within seven years

of the marriage and the evidence of the Doctor (PW12) shows that

there was strangulation, learned counsel would submit that it is a fit

case where the deceased has been done to death.

9. On the other hand, Sri D. Poornachandra Reddy, learned counsel

for the accused would submit that there is absolutely no evidence on

record to show that Accused Nos.1 to 4 harassed the deceased for

money. The evidence available on record was meticulously evaluated

by the trial Court and reasons are given in paragraph Nos. 50 to 56 of

the judgment impugned as to why the evidence of PWs1 to 4 should be

disbelieved. He further submits that the material on record would

show that the deceased locked the door from inside and committed

suicide. The evidence on record also indicates that the door was broke

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

open from outside and thereafter she was taken to hospital. That being

the position, question of invoking presumption under Section 106 of

the Indian Evidence Act would not arise.

10. Though the State did not file any appeal, Sri Soora Venkata Sai

Nath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, took us through the

evidence and the findings given by the learned Sessions Judge to

contend that there are clear indications of a homicidal death.

11. The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

12. It is to be noted here that this is an appeal against

acquittal filed by PW1 (informant). The scope of interference in

an appeal against acquittal was dealt with by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana1,

wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-

"21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable

1 AIR 2000 SC 1833

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783 . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0504/1996 : 1996CriLJ2867 : While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions."

13. In Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P2, while referring to the

case of Sheo Swarup v. King Empero3, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court discussed the ambit and scope of the powers of the

appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and

observed as under: (at p. 230):

"..the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a

2 Criminal Appeal No.155 Of 2006 3 (1934) 36 Bomlr 1185

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.."

The law succinctly crystallized in this case has been consistently followed by this Court. On proper analysis of the ratio and findings of this case, it is revealed that the findings of the trial court are based on the fundamental principles of the criminal jurisprudence. Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused further gets reinforced and strengthened by the acquittal of the trial court. The appellate court undoubtedly has wide powers of re-appreciating and re- evaluating the entire evidence but it would be justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal only when the judgment of the trial court is palpably wrong, totally ill- founded or wholly misconceived, based on erroneous analysis of evidence and non-existent material, demonstrably unsustainable or perverse.

46. This Court again in the case of Surajpal Singh & Others v. State4, has spelt out the powers of the High Court. The Court has also cautioned the Appellate Courts to follow well established norms while dealing with appeals from acquittal by the trial court. The Court observed as under:

"It is well established that in an appeal under S. 417 Criminal P.C., the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well-settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be

4 AIR 1952 SC 52

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

47. This Court reiterated the principles and observed that presumption of innocence of accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court could have interfered only for very substantial and compelling reasons.

48. In Tulsiram Kanu v. The State 5, this Court explicated that the appellate court would be justified in reversing the acquittal only when very substantial question and compelling reasons are present. In this case, the Court used a different phrase to describe the approach of an appellate court against an order of acquittal. There, the Sessions Court expressed that there was clearly reasonable doubt in respect of the guilt of the accused on the evidence put before it. Kania, C.J., observed that it required good and sufficiently cogent reasons to overcome such reasonable doubt before the appellate court came to a different conclusion.

49. In the same year, this Court had an occasion to deal with Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 6, wherein it said that the High Court had not kept the rules and principles of administration of criminal justice clearly before it and that therefore the judgment was vitiated by non-advertence to and mis-appreciation of various material facts transpiring in evidence. The High Court failed to give due weight and consideration to the findings upon which the trial court based its decision.

5 AIR 1954 SC 1 6 AIR 1954 SC 637

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

50. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P.7 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said:

"It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.

It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal."

51. The question was again raised prominently in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra 8. Bose, J. expressing the majority view observed (at p.220):

"It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab9, (at pp.77-78); and if the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference under S. 417 is not justifiable unless there are really

7 AIR 1955 SC 807 8 AIR 1956 SC 217 9 AIR 1953 SC 76

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

strong reasons for reversing that view. Surajpal Singh v. State10 at 54."

52. In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab11, this Court again had an occasion to examine the same proposition of law. The Court (at page 222) observed as under:

"It is now well settled that though the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused person is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court and the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration; and the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses must also be kept in mind, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the appellate Court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Judge."

Keeping in view the principle laid down in the decisions referred

to above, we shall proceed to deal with the matter.

14. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the evidence of PWs.1

to 4 and also in Ex.P1 is that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as

dowry, Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.3 and sare samans worth

Rs.1,00,000/-. This, in substance is evidence with regard to amount

paid at the time of marriage. But in the cross examination of PWs.1 to

10 AIR 1952 SC 52 11 AIR 1957 SC 216

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

4 it was elicited that they belong to Vysya community and that in

Vysya community no money will be given in marriage except gold and

silver and it is the custom in Vysya community to give lanchanams to

sisters-in-law and mother-in-law. It was further elicited that whatever

is presented, the elders will sit and reduce the said pasupukumkuma

particulars under an agreement. In the present case, a perusal of Ex.D5

and the answers elicited in the cross examination of PW3 indicate that

no cash was paid to the accused and that they only presented

Rs.3,00,000/- worth gold and silver towards lanchanams to the

Adapaduchu and mother-in-law of the deceased. Apart from that, it

was also elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that the accused

presented two tolas of gold to the deceased. That being the position,

question of payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.50,000/-

to Accused No.3 appears to be incorrect. The said version is being

introduced only to implicate the accused in the case. It will be

appropriate to refer to the relevant portion in the cross examinations of

PWs1 & 3, which are as under:

"The contents of Ex.D5 are true. We paid three lakhs by way of gold, silver and towards Aadapaduchu and mother- in-law Lanchanams and we have not given any cash.

It is true that in Vysya community, it is custom to give Lanchanams to sisters-in-law and mother-in-law. My

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

father and my brothers financially assisted for the marriage of deceased.

It is true that the contents of Ex.D5 are true. Witness adds that in addition to what we have also paid two tulas of gold to deceased within one month after the marriage. It is true that A3 presented two tulas of god to deceased. It is true that deceased along with A1 used to come to Visakhapatnam twice in a month and used to stay one or two days.

Witness adds that after completing business work of A1, they used to return. It is true that in general parents present some gold items at the time of Kanyadanam as Balatodugu and present remaining gold or other properties as Pasupu Kumkuma.'

15. From the admissions referred to in the evidence of PWs.1 & 3, it

is very much clear that no cash was paid to the accused and that only

gold and silver ornaments were presented towards pasupukumkuma

and Adapaduchu lanchanam under an agreement, prepared at the

instance of Kattamuri Veeraswamy and others.

16. Coming to the demands made by the accused, though PW1

speaks about harassment made by the accused namely had A1 married

another girl, he would have got Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry and also

demanded a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of fax machine,

but that these crucial aspects were not mentioned in the earlier

statements made by PW1. Apart from that, the evidence of

investigating officer (PW14) would show that Accused Nos.1 to 3

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

stated before him that deceased was constantly pressurizing Accused

No.1 to separate herself and Accused No.1 from the joint family. It will

be appropriate to extract the relevant portions in the evidence of

investigating officer (PW14), which are as under:

'PW1 did not state before me that her father came to the house of deceased on 5.2.2011. PW1 did not state before me that the family members of A1 used to harass her deceased daughter by stating that if he marry other girl he would have get Rs.10,00,000/- dowry. PW1 did not state before me that A1 demanded to give their shop and house. PW1 did not state before me that after the birth of her granddaughter, A1 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of fax machine. PW1 did not state before me that her husband told that he was not having that amount to pay and he further advised to obtain loan from Bank by depositing her degree certificate. PW2 did not state before me that they asked A1 and A3 to send deceased and her daughter to Visakhapatnam since her daughter's health was not good and they refused to send and while they were returning, deceased came to the gate and asked them that she will come along with them and then again requested A1 and A3 to send deceased and her daughter along with them and they again refused and stated that they will send the deceased later. It is not true to suggest that PW3 did not state before me that after her deceased daughter gave birth to female child, A2 to A4 started harassing her deceased daughter by stating that A.4's parents gave land to A4. PW4 did not state before me that A1 demanded ten lakhs for purchase of flex machine and since deceased gave birth to black female, in-laws of deceased harassed deceased for additional dowry and that A1 prior to death of his deceased sister, used to tell that he received only three lakhs towards dowry for the marriage

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

of his sister and if he marries another, he will get ten lakhs towards dowry.'

'It is true that A1 to A3 stated before me that deceased was constantly pressuring them to separate herself and A1 from joint family. Witness adds that my investigation reveals that due to harassment of other family members, deceased pressurized for separate family.'

17. From the answers elicited in the cross examination of the

investigating officer (PW14), as observed by us earlier, the allegations

of harassment made were not mentioned/disclosed in the earlier

statements of the witnesses. Apart from that, the case of the

prosecution was something different. It appears the deceased was

insisting Accused No.1 to come out of the joint family and live

separately. The evidence of investigating officer referred to above also

shows that at no point of time, the accused have harassed the deceased

on the ground that she gave birth to a girl child who was dark in

complexion.

18. A reading of the evidence would further show that after

marriage, Accused No.1 and their family, presented bangles and a

bracelet weighing about ½ tola to the granddaughter. The evidence on

record also shows that whenever there was an occasion in the family,

the accused presented gold ornaments to the deceased and also to the

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

new born daughter. If really there were some differences in the family

right from the time of the marriage, Accused No.1 would not have

come to the house of PW1 on his business work. Accused No.1 and

deceased used to come to Yelamanchili and after completing his work,

both of them used to go to Visakhapatnam. Further, at no point of time

the deceased complained about the harassment made by her

husband/Accused No.1 or by the other accused during her visits to

Yelamanchili. Further, the evidence of PW1 also shows that the

deceased and Accused No.1 were planning to go to Shirdi along with

their newly born daughter in the month of February, 2001. Therefore,

all these events show that the accused were taking utmost care of the

deceased in their home.

19. Coming to the incident proper, the evidence of PW1 itself would

show that by the time they reached the scene of offence, the door was

bolted from inside. In fact the information that was furnished to PW2

was that the deceased locked the door from inside and was not

opening the door. This aspect of the matter has to be dealt with in

detail. PW14, the investigating officer, in his cross examination states

that by the time he reached the scene of offence the doors of the room

were locked from inside and he made every effort to get both the doors

opened. It would be appropriate to extract the same:

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

'By the time I reached to scene of offence rear side doors of scene house was kept open. Though I tried to open the door by closing the bolts both the doors i.e., front side and rear side were not opened.'

20. From the above, it is clear that the deceased bolted the door

from inside which fact stands established not only through the

evidence of investigating officer (PW14) but also through the evidence

of PW1 and all the neighbors who disclosed at the earliest point of time

that the door was locked from inside and that the deceased committed

suicide. In order to test the veracity of the witnesses with regard to

the deceased committing suicide, it would be appropriate to refer to

the evidence of PW12 Doctor who conducted post mortem

examination. The death took place in Yelamanchili town and after the

death the family members of the deceased agitated before the

concerned authorities demanding for holding post mortem

examination in Visakhapatnam. It appears from the record that even

during the post mortem examination, PWs1 to 4 agitated before the

concerned authorities because of the false information given by PW4

that the deceased was killed. PW12, who conducted the post mortem

examination clearly stated as under:

'The cause of death of deceased is due to Asphyxia due to pressure on neck. Finger nail clippings are preserved for detection of foreign material if any between tips of fingers and their nails. Time of death

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

of deceased is about 36 to 48 hours prior to post mortem examination. We have issued Ex.P15 post mortem report and it contains my signature. Out of the above injuries, injury No.3 is fatal injury. Description of injury No.3 indiates it is an oblique ligature mark and more in favour of suicidal in nature. Hyoid bone fracture is common in strangulation. But in this case, hyoid bone is in tact. Ex.P16 is the video C.D taken while carrying out post mortem examination.'

21. He was cross examined at length wherein it was elicited that

there was no injury to thyroid cartilage of deceased; absence of injury

to thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone indicates hanging. Ergo from the

above, it is clear that the theory put forth by the accused that it was a

case of hanging cannot be ruled out. Apart from that, it is stated that

they also noted cyanosis in finger rings which is common in case of

hanging.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, the argument of learned counsel for

the accused that possibility of deceased committing suicide inside the

room cannot be ruled out. Having regard to all the circumstances

referred to above and since the evidence on record establish that the

question of paying cash at the time of marriage does not arise in Vysya

community coupled with the manner in which the incident took place

namely inside a room which was locked from inside and the evidence

of Doctor indicating that it was a case of hanging, the findings given by

the learned Sessions Judge, in our view, requires no interference.

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

23. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that even assuming that it is a case of suicide but since the death took

place within seven years of the marriage and it being an un-natural one

and as there was demand for dowry, pleads that it is a fit case where a

conviction can be given under Section 304-B IPC. It may be true that

the death took place within seven years of the marriage and it is an un-

natural death but the question is whether there was any demand for

dowry or any property soon before the death of the deceased. 'Soon

before the death', as observed by the Apex Court, is an elastic term and

no rigid period can be fixed. Be that as it may, the demand of

Rs.10,00,000/- alleged to have been made by the accused through

deceased as additional dowry or a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- after birth of

the child for purchase of fax machine was never mentioned in the

earlier statements of the witnesses. This fact was discussed in detail in

paragraphs 51 & 52 of the judgment of the trial Court. Though at first

blush, the said argument appeared to be impressive but a perusal of

the evidence is proved to be otherwise. Even we do not find any

material to convict the accused under Section 498-A IPC as the relation

between the accused and the deceased was very much cordial and both

of them used to visit parents' house of the deceased at Yelamanchili

whenever the accused had any work in Yelamanchili. In fact,

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

prosecution witnesses themselves deposed that both of them used to

come to Yelamanchili in the morning and thereafter leave in the

evening. Hence, we do not find any material even to convict the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Since the

findings of the trial court are probable and cannot be said to be

perverse, question of reversing the said findings even if another view is

possible basing on the same evidence, in our view, may not be correct.

24. Before parting, it may be noted that learned counsel for the

appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra & another [2022 LiveLaw (SC)

37]; Om Prakash v. State of Punjab [(1992) 4 SCC 212]; Shamnsaheb

M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 2 SCC 577] and Trimukh

Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681].

25. In all the above decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the

facts and circumstances of the said cases, came to conclusions that the

ingredients constituting the offences were made out and also as to the

circumstances under which Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has

to be invoked. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan's case, the accused failed to

explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, more

so, when the body was found in the house. In Balwant Singh v. Partap

Singh and others [(2000) 9 SCC 352] the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

dealing with a situation where the prosecution was able to establish

harassment on account of the insufficient dowry and demands being

made before her death. Under those circumstances, the Court held that

ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were proved. In Om Prakash's case,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the

deceased died due to torture and dowry demand. The occurrence took

place in a open court yard of in-laws' house during day time. It was a

case where there was a dying declaration involving family members

compelling her to bring sufficient dowry or cash. Because of the same,

she sprinkled kerosene and set herself on fire.

26. But in the instant case, as observed by us earlier, no evidence

has been placed on record to show that there was any harassment or

demand for dowry soon before her death or at any time prior to the

death. On the other hand, as observed by us earlier, relationship

between both of them was cordial.

27. The question is what made the deceased to commit suicide. The

burden is not on the accused to prove as to why the deceased

committed suicide. The accused will not be in a position to explain the

reasons for the deceased to commit suicide but the defence evidence

which is placed in the form of DWs.1 to 3 would give some indication

as to the cause for deceased to commit suicide. DW3 is the Doctor with

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

whom the deceased was taking treatment. It was suggested by DW3

that deceased should not take up any travel and on that accused

refused to send the deceased to Visakhapatnam along with PWs1 & 2.

The deceased being sensitive in nature might have got offended by this

and possibility of she having committing suicide for the said reasons

cannot be ruled out. This finding in our view assumes importance for

the reason that the evidence of prosecution witness show that all of

them were cordial and there were no differences between the accused

and the deceased.

28. Having regard to the above findings, we see no grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to

be dismissed.

29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming

the judgment, dated 05.02.2014, passed in Sessions Case

No.322of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

__________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N CHAKRAVARTHI 02.01.2023 Vjl

CPK J & BVLN J Crl_A_721_2014

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Crl.A.No.721 of 2014

[per CPK,J]

02.01.2023

Vjl