Josula Sivasankara Rao, A1 vs The State Of A.P.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1491 AP

         THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1035 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

Appellants call in question the legality of convicting

judgment dated 18.09.2009 of learned IX Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC), Guntur in Sessions Case No.458 of 2008. They

and some of their relatives were prosecuted for the offence

under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. On conclusion of the

trial A.3 to A.5 were found not guilty and they were acquitted.

However, A.1 and A.2 were found guilty for the offence under

Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was

punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten

years. That A.1 and A.2 filed this Criminal Appeal under

Section 374 Cr.P.C alleging that the evidence did not establish

the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the sickness suffered by

the deceased was proved by evidence and the cruelty or

harassment with reference to dowry was never established and

the death was not proved as a definite result out of the injuries

allegedly that were there on the dead body of the deceased. It is

for these reasons, learned counsel for appellants seek to upset

the impugned judgment and acquit the accused.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

2. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

the State submit that with cogent evidence all the ingredients of

the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. were established and the

trial Court reached to appropriate conclusions and convicted

the accused and there are no tenable grounds in this appeal

and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

3. Having considered the arguments on both sides and

having perused the entire record, the point that falls for

consideration is:

"Whether the facts disclosed by the evidence proved

beyond reasonable doubt that there was dowry death in

terms of Section 304-B I.P.C.?"

4. Point:

Crime No.111 of 2008 of Lalapet Law and Order Police

Station, Guntur was investigated into by the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Guntur Town. On conclusion of the investigation,

the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the

learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur

which was registered as P.R.C.No.28 of 2008. After securing

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

presence of the five accused and after furnishing copies of

documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing

both sides, the learned Magistrate, acting in terms of Section

209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to Sessions Division. Learned

IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur took cognizance for

the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. After

hearing both sides, charge was framed accordingly. Accused

pleaded not guilty. At the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to

22 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. Incriminating evidence was

confronted to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and

the response was that the evidence was incorrect and false.

Thereafter, first accused entered the witness box and deposed

as DW.1. During his evidence Exs.D.3 to D.11 were marked.

For defence, during the course of cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. An

extract of general diary was marked as Ex.C.1. The wearing

apparel and ornaments of the deceased were seized and were

exhibited at trial as MO.1 to MO.7. After considering the entire

evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides,

the learned trial Court found that the offence under Section

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

304-B I.P.C. was established as against these two appellants

and accordingly convicted them.

5. The man and his mother are appellant Nos.1 and 2

respectively. Before the trial Court the man was A.1 and his

mother was A.2. The victim in this case was Smt. J.Rajya

lakshmi. To her, the 1st appellant was husband and the 2nd

appellant was mother-in-law. The marriage of A.1 with the

deceased woman was solemnized on 31.08.2007. The woman

died in her matrimonial home on 27.04.2008. She was found

dead at about 1:30 P.M. during day time. The matrimonial

home is in 6th lane of Nalla Cheruvu of Guntur and the parental

home of the deceased was in zero lane in the very same area of

Nalla Cheruvu of Guntur. A.1 is a graduate in Arts and he

works in 3D Colour Laboratory, Guntur as a Printing Operator

and his work place situate near Arundalpet Police Station of

Guntur. The deceased woman was an educated lady and

worked as a Computer Operator for two years in Apex Solutions

(vide the evidence of PW.5). By the time of her death on

27.04.2008 she was carrying 7th month pregnancy. The

undisputed evidence on record further disclose that since the

house of accused and the maternal house of the deceased are

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

geography located in the same area, there have been frequent

exchange of visits between both the families. The evidence on

record further show that for the deceased there are siblings and

her father died a few years earlier to her marriage. Her brother

is the one who has been looking after the well being of the

family. All the above referred facts are undisputed on both

sides and are borne by evidence on record.

6. The large number of witnesses examined for prosecution

can be grouped under different heads. For the deceased woman

her mother is PW.1, her brother is PW.2, her younger sister is

PW.3, her aunt is PW.4 and her friend is PW.5. For the house of

PWs.1 to 5 in the opposite direction there is a house where

PW.6 lives. This is one set of evidence. Subsequent to

marriage, the victim woman was living in her matrimonial

home. PWs.7 and 8 run kirana shops in the neighbourhood of

her matrimonial house. PWs.11 and 12 are residents in the

neighbourhood of matrimonial house of the deceased. This is

one group of witnesses. At the matrimonial home when the

deceased was found unconscious PW.9-R.M.P.Doctor was

summoned and thereafter the woman was taken to another

doctor/PW.10. PW.13 is in the business of settling marriage

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

alliances and he runs Jayalakshmi Marriage Links as his

business. He settled the marriage between the spouses. PW.14

is stated to be another person who was instrumental in the

marriage of this couple. PW.15 is the Purohit who solemnized

the marriage. The rest of the witnesses include persons who

assisted the investigating agency when they visited the scene of

offence, prepared a scene observation report and held inquest

over the dead body and they signed several Mahazars in that

regard. None of them is an eye witness to any of the facts

constituting the offence. PW.19 is the photographer who shot

photographs of the dead body. One crucial witness in this case

is PW.21-Dr. M.Madhusudhana Reddy, who was Professor in

Medical College. He conducted autopsy over the dead body.

PW.22 was investigating Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who did

all the investigation and filed police report. As against this, the

evidence of DW.1/A.1 was about happy marital life and sickness

of his pregnant wife. His endeavour was to show that his wife

for the last three years preceding her death has been suffering

from rheumatism. Exs.D.3 to D.11 are the various medical

prescriptions of various doctors and diagnostic reports of the

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

laboratory starting from 02.11.2007 till 23.04.2008. Death

occurred on 27.04.2008.

7. On considering the above referred evidence of various

witnesses, the learned trial Court found the following facts as

established:

1. That the accused have been complaining that the

deceased woman was not doing household work

properly and there were several imperfections in her

household work.

2. On 28.02.2008 which was just 2 months earlier to the

death, the marriage of younger sister of the deceased

was solemnized. That the evidence established that all

the accused including these appellants were not very

happy since they believed that the marriage of the

sister of the deceased was solemnized in a grand

manner while the marriage of A.1 with the deceased

was not so solemnized. For their marriage screens

were not arranged, but for the marriage of sister of the

deceased screens were arranged and lighting was

made. A.1 even refused to take meals at the marriage

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

but finally being convinced by the relations, he had his

meals at the marriage venue.

3. A.1 was demanding the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/-

on the ground that he wanted to go to Bangalore and

study a computer course.

8. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the learned trial Court

found consistent statements from the witnesses in proof of the

above facts. The learned trial Court referred to the evidence of

PW.21 and his post-mortem examination report in Exs.P.10 and

P.11 and Ex.P.17- RFSL report and recorded a finding that there

were injuries on the body of the deceased woman. It was on

that evidence and the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 saw it crystal clear

that the accused used to scold the deceased for not doing

household work in a proper manner and when she became

pregnant and suffered from swelling of her feet she was abused

by A.2 that it was unfortunate that her son/A.1 had to marry a

patient. That A.1 and A.2 quarreled with PW.1/mother of

deceased at the time of marriage of the younger sister of

deceased. That after that marriage function they still harassed

the woman stating that if they did not have money how they

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

could solemnize the marriage in such a grand fashion. That the

evidence established a dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- and on the

dead body there were injuries and the death was preceded by

dowry demand. A pregnant woman was to be considered as

goddess, but this unfortunate woman was humiliated and

harassed and she was made lifeless and the accused had no

excuse to escape. The presumption under Section 113B of the

Indian Evidence Act about the dowry death was recorded and

finally at para No.34 of the impugned judgment, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge held that the unrelenting demand for

dowry of Rs.50,000/- led to the death of the woman and

therefore, found these appellants guilty and convicted them

accordingly.

9. The fervent argument of the learned counsel for

appellants is that this being the appeal against conviction this

Court has to see the entire evidence on record and on seeing so,

according to learned counsel, it would be clear that the evidence

on record really did not depict what was actually concluded by

the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that mere evidence of

cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to prove charge under

Section 304-B I.P.C. It has to be shown in addition that such

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand

for dowry as held in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder v. State

of West Bengal1. Learned counsel further submits that to

bring in operation Section 34 I.P.C. and to convict A.2 law

mandates that there shall be evidence direct or circumstantial

showing that there was plan or meeting of minds among the

accused to commit the offence for which they are charged.

Learned counsel submits, the facts and circumstances

appearing from the evidence do not indicate any common

intention and for this purpose learned counsel placed reliance

on Laxman Anaji Dhundale v. State of Maharashtra2.

Learned counsel further submits that unless there is clear

evidence showing that the accused demanded dowry followed by

ill-treatment prior to death there is no legality in convicting

accused for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and placed

reliance on State of Karnataka v. Tailor Manjunatha @

Manjunatha Reddy3.

(2008) 1 SCC 202

(2007) 10 SCC 771

2010 SCC Online Kar 4619 (DB)

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

10. It was at 9:00 P.M. on 27.04.2008 PW.1 who is the

mother of the deceased lodged Ex.P.1 written information with

Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet Law and Order Police Station.

That was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.111 of 2008 under

Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P.9 is F.I.R. A reading of

Ex.P.1 from the very mother of the deceased would show that

the wife and husband have been living happily and two months

prior to this lodging of information she solemnized marriage of

her second daughter and it is only since then the accused

developed enmity against the deceased and started harassing

her, ill-treating her and demanding her to bring more gold and

money. She further stated that it was from neighbours she had

come to know that her daughter was not treated properly and

unparliamentary words were being used against her. She

further mentioned in it that as and when her daughter was

coming to her house she was telling neighbours of the house

about the harassment and ill-treatment suffered by her. Ex.P.1

further discloses that it was only since 17.04.2008 after she

dropped her daughter at her matrimonial home she was

subjected to harassment without any reason. When her

daughter came to her house to go to hospital she was taken to

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

the hospital and thereafter she was once again dropped at her

matrimonial house. During this interaction PW.1 observed that

her daughter was not happy and it was then her daughter told

her that she was harassed for no reason and if she went back to

matrimonial home it may not be safe for her life. It was then

she also told her that she was asked to bring Rs.50,000/- from

her brother for getting a job at Bangalore. For all these, the

response of the mother/PW.1, as per Ex.P.1 is that she advised

her to be patient enough to endure these things.

11. In Ex.P.1 it is then mentioned that at about 1:20 P.M. on

27.04.2008 the father-in-law of her daughter came to her house

and told that the deceased was shifted to hospital and the

junior mother-in-law telephoned to PW.2 that the deceased

hanged herself. PW.1 went to Kalpana Hospital and found all

the accused bringing the dead body and the dead body was

taken to the matrimonial home and she observed some swelling

injuries on her body. It was in these circumstances, she felt

that cruelty was the cause of her death and therefore, she was

lodging that written information. PW.1 gave evidence of the

facts and in her cross-examination she further stated that till

the marriage of her younger daughter on 28.02.2008 the marital

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

life of her deceased daughter with A.1 was happy. From

28.02.2008 only for two months her daughter survived and she

died on 27.04.2008. The evidence of PW.1 is that accused

harassed her daughter alleging that she was not attending

household work properly and she was not perfect in doing

household work. Her evidence also shows that on 28.02.2008

A.1 and A.2 quarreled with her at the marriage venue where the

marriage of her younger daughter was solemnized wherein the

accused drew comparison between the marriage of A.1 with

deceased as against the marriage of sister of the deceased with

a lorry driver. They were complaining that while the marriage of

A.1 was dull and dark, the marriage of the lorry driver is very

bright and grand. It is in this regard they quarreled. The

evidence of PW.5 who is a friend of the deceased is that it was

because of these comparisons and quarrels the deceased was

weeping at that marriage venue. The other evidence of PW.1 is

that four days prior to Srirama Navami festival she went and

brought her daughter to her home and it was on that occasion

she told her that her husband/A.1 was asking her to get

Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of pursuing a computer course at

Bangalore. The response from the family of the deceased was

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

that the issue would be resolved soon. PW.1 then dropped her

daughter at the house of the accused on 17.04.2008. She said

that deceased was harassed for her inability to bring money.

The deceased was once again brought by PW.1 on 23.04.2008

which was four days earlier to her death. She took her to a

doctor for medical check up. On that occasion also her

daughter told her about this Rs.50,000/- and expressed her

fear to go back home without that money. PW.1 consoled her

and dropped her at her matrimonial home. On the next day

that was on 24.04.2008 PW.1 visited her daughter at her

matrimonial home and there also she was told by her daughter

about her fear in staying in the house and she expressed her

desire to come to the house of her mother. However, PW.1

consoled her and left the house. She told her daughter that on

completing her 7th month pregnancy she would take her to

home.

12. PW.1 then stated in her evidence that A.3 hurriedly came

to her house stating that the deceased due to reeling sensation

fell down and she was taken to Doctor Kalpana's Hospital

located in the same Nalla Cheruvu area. On listening this PW.1

rushed there and found all the accused there and her daughter

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

unconscious and she spoke to her daughter but there was no

response from her and there was no body movements and

thereafter her daughter was shifted to the matrimonial home.

She said that she observed certain injuries on her body such as

contusions and twisted position of left hand and an injury over

the left eye side. The evidence of PWs.2 to 5 is also on these

facts on similar lines and do not require any reproduction or

repetition here. PW.2 who is the very brother of the deceased

who has been taking care of the maintenance of the entire

house stated in his cross-examination that his deceased sister

never told him about any harassment from any of the accused

at any point of time. Thus, what all he spoke about certain

facts are only information he gathered from others and not from

his own sister. Thus, on all the important facts his evidence

was in the realm of hearsay. To the prosecution witnesses

defence was suggesting that the deceased was suffering from

rheumatism and swelling of feet much prior to her pregnancy

and earlier to her marriage. Witnesses were denying it as

incorrect and false. However, PW.3 who is the very younger

sister of the deceased stated in her cross-examination that even

before marriage her deceased sister suffered from swelling of

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

feet and she did not take any medicines. She also said that her

deceased sister's matrimonial life was happy till the time of her

own marriage in February, 2008. About comments against the

deceased that she was not attending household work properly

the evidence of PW.5/the friend of deceased was, that comment

was there only from A.2 and not others. PW.6 who lives near

the house of PWs.1 to 5 said that the deceased used to tell him

that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry. Be it noted,

PWs.1 to 5 never even whispered about any dissatisfaction

expressed by any of the accused concerning dowry for the

marriage of A.1 with the deceased.

13. One conspicuous fact that emerges from the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 and any of the facts that they are learnt from the

deceased is that they never went and sat with any of the

accused and spoke to them, they never questioned them, they

never advised them, they never took anyone else to resolve

anything. The evidence of PWs.1 to 6 also shows that on any

facts that they heard from deceased they were never witnesses

to any of those facts. Their entire knowledge of facts was only

through PW.1 and none else. That a married lady being told by

her mother-in-law that she required more perfection in doing or

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

attending household work can never be said to be cruelty or

harassment among family members. A praise or a comment

with reference to the works that were being done is a common

factor in any household. It is no one's case that she was either

abused or physically beaten for her imperfections in doing

household works. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in

PWs.1 to 6 that A.1 was dissatisfied with the manner in which

his marriage was performed was a dissatisfaction that he never

expressed to anyone till the marriage of sister of deceased was

solemnized at the marriage venue. The sullenness of A.1 was

out of a comparison with the grandeur with which he found the

marriage of his wife's sister was performed. He walked out

without taking meals and was consoled and was brought back.

Either at the said marriage or thereafter it is not the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 that there was any physical abuse of the deceased by

any of the accused in this regard. It is not the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 that earlier to the marriage of A.1 with the deceased

there was a bargain and settlement of dowry and that only a

part of it was paid and a balance was not paid and that for

fetching that balance dowry the married lady was subjected to

cruelty or harassment. What all the prosecution witnesses were

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

telling was that A.1 was asking his wife to fetch Rs.50,000/- so

that he would pursue a computer course at Bangalore. The

learned trial Court termed this as dowry harassment. No

witness ever stated that this Rs.50,000/- was demanded as a

dowry. The evidence of DW.1 and the evidence of PW.3 is that

at the time of marriage between deceased and A.1 Rs.1,00,000/-

was given and that was kept in the fixed deposit in the joint

names of A.1 and the deceased. It is not the case of prosecution

that the said deposit was ever disturbed and that money was

ever consumed by accused. Thus, the evidence indicates

existence of Rs.1,00,000/- with A.1 and deceased. It is not the

case of prosecution that the deceased or the mother and brother

and sister of the deceased were told by the accused that they

wanted to consume that money. Thus, the fact remains

availability of Rs.1,00,000/- with accused. It is in that context

one has to see the alleged demand for Rs.50,000/-. None of the

prosecution witnesses ever went and spoke to A.1 or A.2 to A.5

either to find what was the need for him or to told him anything

or advised him that the money should not be a matter between

wife and husband. There was absolutely no movement from any

of the prosecution witnesses in response to anything that they

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

heard from PW.1. Even four days before the death, PW.1 went

to the house of accused and brought her daughter, went to the

hospital and dropped her at the matrimonial home. That

indicates that the accused have always been permitting the

deceased to meet her family members and talk to her family

members and permitting the family members and others to meet

her at the matrimonial home. The evidence of DW.1 is that he

has been taking his wife to doctors althroughout during her

period of pregnancy. Ex.D-Series documents vouchsafe for it.

Thus, there was no deficiency on part of accused in rendering

service to a married woman. That they have been attending all

the functions and A.1 attended the marriage of PW.3 without

any questions raised though at the marriage venue comparison

of spending for marriage was taken as an exception by A.1. All

these facts put together would indicate the normal life being led

by the spouses. None of the family members of the deceased,

for themselves, were entertaining any apprehensions about

anything could happen to the deceased in the hands of the

accused. There has been no criminal history either for the

accused or for the prosecution witnesses. Drawing comparison

for marriage celebrations or elders telling the newly married girl

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

about the need for attending household works more efficiently

are no way connected to dowry and cruelty with reference to

dowry as mentioned in Section 304-B I.P.C. In Girish Singh v.

State of Uttarakhand4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

was examining a case under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C.

Among other facts, one of the crucial facts that made the lower

Courts to bring the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. was that

the father-in-law of the deceased married lady was frequently

approaching the lady and demanding her to sleep with him. At

para No.55, their Lordships held that those facts have nothing

to do with reference to a case under Section 304-B I.P.C. Their

Lordships at para No.37 held that any and every cruelty does

not fall within the ambit of Section 304-B I.P.C. and to bring the

case within the four corners of that provision the evidence led

by prosecution must show that the woman was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in

connection with any demand for dowry and not otherwise. The

law is that mere demand for dowry by itself is also not

(2020) 18 SCC 423

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

considered as cruelty unless failure to comply with the demand

was visited with cruelty.

14. In the light of the above facts and law the evidence on

record has to be further scrutinized. Be it noted, the deceased

belonged to Nalla Cheruvu area and where her paternal home

was in zero lane and her matrimonial home is at 6th lane. She

must be knowing people around that area for quite some time.

After marriage for about eight months till her death she

continuously lived at the house of her husband. Therefore, she

must be knowing her neighbours. PWs.7, 8, 11 and 12 are the

neighbours. All of them said that the matrimonial life of the

deceased at the house of the accused was happy and cheerful

and they never noticed any untoward incident. Prosecution

chose to examine some of them in cross but failed to elicit

anything to impeach their credibility or any fact in proof of

charge. If really the deceased woman was subjected to troubles,

there was no occasion for her not to tell someone who was

immediately available around her house. Be it noted, as one

could see from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, never

there was an incident of any of the accused sending away the

deceased from the house nor the deceased rushing away from

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

the matrimonial home and reaching her mother and brother

complaining any trouble for her in the hands of accused. That

is indicative of the fact that it was a normal family life she was

leading. Normal family life holds pains and pleasures in its

living. The evidence of PWs.1 to 6 does not show that they ever

felt to enquire the well being of the deceased through any

neighbour of the matrimonial home. That means they had no

occasion to feel anything bad or suspicious. All witnesses

always told in the Court that as and when the deceased woman

happened to come to the house of PW.1 only during that time

they were informed all these incidents. Evidence shows she

always normally went back to her matrimonial home. That

speaks of her assured life at the matrimonial home. The

demand for Rs.50,000/- though spoken to by witnesses

consistently the evidence also indicates that for that

Rs.50,000/- she was never beaten. Be it noted, Section 304-B

I.P.C. indicates causing bodily injuries and no other injuries

such as injury to mind, reputation or property as defined in

Section 44 I.P.C. During the entire lifetime of deceased she

neither complained to anyone about any bodily injury inflicted

by any of the accused against her nor any of the prosecution

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

witnesses observing any injury on the body of the deceased. It

was in the context of these facts and circumstances on record,

the further scrutiny of the evidence is required.

15. As the evidence of DW.1 indicates he went to his

employment, came back home at 1:00 P.M. and went into the

home and found his wife unconscious on the cot. It was

thereafter he and his family members informed the matter to

the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the moment they saw the

victim woman on the cot unconscious they did not keep it a

secret and they made it public and they immediately informed it

to PW.1 and others. It is also the evidence of PW.1 and other

witnesses as well as the evidence of DW.1 that they summoned

PW.9-R.M.P. Doctor and they took the unconscious lady to

PW.10 doctor. PW.10 declared her dead. Then they brought

back the dead body to the house of accused. PW.19-

photographer at the behest of PW.22 investigating officer shot

photographs as per Ex.P.8 and his evidence is that he did not

find any injuries on the dead body. PW.21 is the doctor who

conducted autopsy. In his evidence he said and his opinion in

Ex.P.10 report he mentioned that he observed the following

injuries on the dead woman:

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

The following antemortem injuries present over the body.

1. Contusion measuring 3 x 3 x 1 Cm present over outer aspect of left thigh in middle 1/3rd area.

2. Contusion of 4 x 3 x 1 Cm present near the first injury.

3. Contusion measuring 3 x 2 x 1Cm present on back of left knee.

4. Contusion measuring 2 x 2 x 1Cm present back of left elbow.

5. Contusion 5 x 2 x 1 Cm present on back of left shoulder.

6. Scratch abrasion present on back of right ear.

He gave his final opinion as per Ex.P.11 stating that the

deceased suffered shock because of her multiple injuries and

died. The learned trial Court considered this evidence and held

that injuries were found on the dead body of the married woman

and the death occurred in the matrimonial home and this

occurred within seven years from the time of marriage and

therefore, accused were guilty for the offence under Section

304-B I.P.C. Having considered the cross-examination of this

medical man and on considering the other facts, this Court is

unable to approve the findings of the trial Court in this regard.

This doctor in his cross-examination stated certain facts and

they are extracted here:

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

"It is true if a person suffering from rheumatism or romatied arthritis and if she taking some self prescribed tablets there is likelihood of aggravating the disease. In general cases the injuries mentioned in post mortem examination report are not such a nature of producing shock or resulting in death but the possibility cannot be ruled out. It is true the pregnant women may develop reeling sensation and may fall on ground or any hard substance there is possibility of receiving injury and there is a possibility if a person fell on cot in contact with any hard substance will receive the injury mentioned in post mortem examination report."

16. The above facts spoken to by the doctor/prosecution

witness signify that in the opinion of this expert it could have

been a natural death also. In the opinion of this expert

accidental fall on a cot or a hard substance also would have

caused such injuries. In the opinion of this expert medical

man, the injuries found on the body could not reasonably cause

death.

17. There are no witnesses from the prosecution side

specifying that any of these accused inflicted any of these

injuries on the deceased woman. There is no prosecution

evidence indicating as to who was physically present when that

death occurred in the matrimonial home. Was it only A.1 or A.1

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

to A.5 or some of them. No prosecution witness told hearing of

any cries or wailing of the injured woman before she fell

unconscious. When this married lady during that day time

suffered these injuries in the hands of any accused one would

have heard some cry or other. Thus, nothing relevant was

brought on record on these crucial aspects. Existence of

injuries on the body is a fact and it is also a fact that no

accused inflicted them because there is no evidence and no

allegation in proof of a fact that accused inflicted these injuries.

Whether woman suffered from rheumatism or not, the evidence

of her husband/DW.1 is that she suffered from rheumatism.

That has been the defence from the beginning. That the woman

suffered from swelling of feet even earlier to the marriage is

acknowledged by her own sister PW.3. Though there is no

defence evidence of a doctor proving rheumatism, the version of

defence gives certain probability to think the possibility of truth

in it. Viewed in that context, one has to necessarily conclude

that the injuries on the body of the deceased were not inflicted

by the accused as part of cruelty for not bringing Rs.50,000/-.

If that be the case, even going by the medical evidence, either it

could have been a natural death or could have been death out

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

of accidental fall. It has never been the case of prosecution that

this is either a case of suicide or homicide. It is in these facts

and circumstances, this Court has to say that when the medical

evidence indicates other possibilities the Court has to conclude

that the cause of death is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In Alamuri Lalita Devi v. State of A.P.5, this Court had stated

that when there is no evidence that death is homicidal or

suicidal and when the evidence does not indicate the gravity of

alleged cruelty leading to a death, one could not conclude that

the death was result of cruelty. Cruelty is not a fact isolated

from the environment and back ground of the spouses. There

shall be no speculation or ambiguity in the evidence. It is for

the above reasons, this Court finds that there was failure of

prosecution in bringing the alleged conduct of the accused

within the parameters of dowry death that is defined in Section

304-B I.P.C. Therefore, conviction recorded by the trial Court

as against these appellants cannot be sustained. Point is

answered in favour of the appellants.

(1995) 1 ALT Crl. 139 (AP)/(1994) SCC ONLINE AP 314.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The

conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A.1

and A.2 in the judgment dated 18.09.2009 of the learned

IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Sessions Case

No.458 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B

read with 34 I.P.C. is set aside and they are acquitted for the

said offence.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 17.03.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1035 of 2009

Date: 17.03.2023

Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.1035 of 2009