Bakagani Venkat Narayana, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4016 Tel

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.221 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304-B

of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous

imprisonment, further convicted and sentenced to undergo five

years and six months for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, respectively vide judgment in S.C.No.123 of

2008, dated 16.02.2009 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

at Suryapet. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The appellant (A1) and his parents were tried for the offences

under Sections 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge found A2 and

A3 not guilty for any of the offences and accordingly acquitted them

of all the charges leveled against them.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 filed a complaint on

12.11.2006 stating that his deceased daughter was given in

marriage to the appellant five years prior to her death. At the time

of her marriage, Rs.1,50,000/- cash was given and they lived

happily for some time. Thereafter, both the appellant and the

acquitted accused started demanding additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/-. Though, P.W.1 tried to convince the appellant and his

parents that he would pay additional dowry at a later date, they

continuously harassed her. On 12.11.2006 his daughter left her

house and went to parents house, as such the appellant went and

beat her. Unable to bear the harassment of the accused, she

consumed poison. While undergoing treatment, she died at 3.00

p.m on the same day.

4. The prosecution examined P.W.1- father, P.W.2- mother,

PW.3- maternal uncle, P.W.4- cousin brother of the deceased and

P.W.5 neighbour. All the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 turned hostile to

the prosecution case and did not state anything about any kind of

harassment. However, P.Ws.1 and 2, parents of the deceased

stated that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the

accused and also 5 tulas of gold and other household articles to the

deceased.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on the ground that P.Ws.1 and 2

stated that at the time of marriage dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- was

given to the appellant found the appellant guilty. Except making

bald allegations that they have given dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- there

are no details as to how the said dowry was given to the appellant.

Mere statement without giving any specific details nor there being

any corroboration to the said statement of giving dowry, it cannot

form basis for conviction.

6. The other evidence which the prosecution produced is Ex.P16,

which is a death note alleged to have been written by the deceased.

The said death note was not proved by the prosecution during the

course of trial. Ex.P16 was not confronted to any of the witnesses to

know about the writings in the said note as that of the deceased.

Further, to establish that Ex.P16 was written by deceased, the

same was not sent to any hand writing expert to prove that Ex.P16

letter was in the hand writing of the deceased.

7. Merely marking the document will not suffice and it is for the

prosecution to prove the contents with admissible evidence. Unless

a person who is acquainted with the writings of the deceased is

examined or a person who has seen the deceased writing Ex.P16 is

examined, the said death note Ex.P16 cannot be relied upon and

the contents cannot be read into to record conviction.

8. In the back ground of bald statement without giving any

details and there being no corroboration to the factum of giving

Rs.1,50,000/- dowry and also Ex.P16 not being proved by the

prosecution to place any reliance, the conviction recorded by the

learned Sessions Judge has to be set aside.

9. In the result, the impugned judgment of the trial Court in

S.C.No.123 of 2008 dated 16.02.2009 is set aside and the appellant

is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. Since he is on

bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.08.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.221 OF 2009

Date: 02.08.2022.

kvs