Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P. Rep. By The Public ... vs Pagilla Srinu on 16 February, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1492 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the State, aggrieved by the
Judgment, dated 21.11.2006, passed by the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nalgonda, in Sessions Case No.630 of 2005, whereby, the
respondents herein were acquitted of the charge levelled against them
under Section 304-B of IPC.
2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, and also
perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution was that the daughter of PWs.1
and 2 was married to A-1. Two months after the marriage, A-1 and
his parents i.e. A-2 and A-3 started harassing daughter of PWs.1 and
2 physically and mentally, demanding for balance amount of dowry
and also made her responsible for missing of their she buffalo and
beat her. Being unable to bear their harassment, the daughter of
P.Ws.1 and 2 committed suicide on 17.02.2004 by consuming
pesticide poison.
4. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9
besides M.Os.1 and 2.
5. The Court below, has recorded its finding that there are
lacunas in the prosecution case. In Ex.P-1/report, the specific
allegation is that A-1 to A-3 along with four others, who were not
charge-sheeted, beat the deceased and killed her and there is no
averment in Ex.P-1 that the deceased/Renuka committed suicide by
consuming poison due to harassment for dowry. Further, PWs.1 and
2 i.e. the parents of deceased and also the paternal uncle of
deceased, stated before the inquest panchas and the M.R.O., who
conducted inquest over the dead body that the deceased was beaten
by A-1 to A-3 and others and forcibly administered poison to her and
thus killed her. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish as
to whether the deceased committed suicide on her own or being killed
by the accused and others. Apart from that, just prior to the
incident, the accused quarrelled with the deceased over missing of
their she-buffalo but not for bringing dowry amount. Therefore, the
trial Court opined that the prosecution has failed to establish the
motive for the occurrence i.e. whether it is for missing of she-buffalo
or for payment of balance dowry, and also the cause of death i.e.
whether the deceased committed suicide on her own or being beat
and administered poison and thus killed by the accused and others.
With the said findings, the trial Court found A-1 to A-3 not guilty of
the charge under Section 304-B of IPC and thus, acquitted them.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial
Court has failed to see that the death occurred within 7 years of
marriage of deceased with A-1; the ingredients of offence under
Section 304-B IPC were made out, in which, the burden of proof lies
on the accused but not on the prosecution.
7. The learned counsel for respondents/accused, on the other
hand, contended that the trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of
prosecution witnesses in detail and after perusing the documentary
evidence on record, has given its findings that the prosecution has
failed to establish its case, and thus, has rightly acquitted the
accused. He contended that there are no grounds to interfere with
the well-reasoned judgment of the court below acquitting the
accused. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The material on record shows that the prosecution has failed to
establish its case against the respondents/accused. The record
discloses that there are many contradictions and lacunas in the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, when compared to the
contents of Ex.P-1/complaint. The prosecution has failed to
establish the cause of death of the deceased, whether it is for missing
of the she-buffalo or for want of balance dowry and also failed to
establish as to whether the deceased committed suicide on her own
or was beaten and killed by A-1 to A-3 and 4 others. For the reasons
best known to it, the prosecution has also failed to charge-sheet
those 4 other persons who allegedly beat the deceased along with A-1
to A-3, though such serious allegations were made against those four
persons.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the Judgment of the trial Court and this appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
10. The Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the
Judgment, dated 21.11.2006, passed by the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nalgonda, in Sessions Case No.630 of 2005.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
G. SRI DEVI, J
16th February 2021
YVL
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1492 of 2009
Date:16.02.2021
YVL
