Telangana High Court
Vodnala Satyanarayana, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 4 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.844 OF 2009
Between:
Vodnala Satyanarayana. ... Petitioner.
And
State of A.P.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad. ... Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 04.08.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.844 of 2009
% Dated 04.08.2022
# Vodnala Satyanarayana ... Petitioner
And
$ State of A.P.,
Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad ..Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant: C.Sharan Reddy,
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2010 (2) ALD (Crl.)811 (SC)
2 2013 AIR SCW 1746
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.844 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under
Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and
also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC , in default, to suffer two
months simple imprisonment, vide judgment in S.C.No.433 of 2006,
dated 31.07.2009 passed by the III Additional Sessions
Judge(FTC),Asifabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the
deceased with the appellant was performed on 09.11.2000. Dowry
of Rs.1,25,000/-, 5 tulas of gold, 15 tulas of silver, TV and other
articles were given. The deceased and the appellant lived happily
for one year and thereafter, the appellant started harassing the
deceased for additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. Due to the
persistent demand, P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.35,000/-and
thereafter Rs.30,000/- 20,000/- on three different occasions. On
04.01.2006, the appellant allegedly beat the deceased for additional
dowry and she was asked to get another Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly,
P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.5,000/-and sent her home. However,
he came to know that on 05.01.2006 the deceased died and having
killed the deceased, the appellant and his parents were trying to
cover up the murder by stating it to be a case of suicide for which
reason the action was said to be taken against the appellant and
others. The police after investigation filed chargesheet for the
offences under Sections 304-B read with Section 34 IPC against
appellant and the acquitted accused (A2 and A3).
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there is
an allegation of demand of money and PW.1 gave his daughter the
amount on three different occasions, there is no allegation that
subsequent to such demand of money, there was any kind of ill-
treatment. Mere demanding money will not amount to an offence
under Section 304-B of IPC.
4. Counsel further submits that the appellant entered into the
witness box and examined himself as D.W.1. His case is that after
marriage on 09.11.2000, they lived cordially and the deceased was
suffering from abdominal pain and was treated over a period of
time. She was operated for appendicitis at Priyadarshini Hospital
and the operation was performed on 15.01.2005. However, the
abdominal pain did not subside. Proof of her abdominal pain and
she being treated in different hospitals was filed by D.W.1 as Ex.D6
to D17 and the deceased must have committed suicide due to
unbearable abdominal pain and failure to conceive. The learned
Public Prosecutor except stating all the documents were prepared
for the purpose of case, there is no other cross examination to
suggest falsity of any of the documents filed by D.W.1.
5. The complaint under Ex.P1 dated 06.01.2006 was filed after
the death of the deceased on 05.01.2006. In the said complaint,
though it is alleged that dowry was given at the time of marriage,
P.W.1 did not state anything about any additional dowry being
given except an amount of Rs.5,000/- two days prior to her death.
Even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, the
allegation of harassment was stated by the deceased and never
there was any demand directly made by this appellant. P.Ws.1 and
2, the parents, P.W.3 is the brother have stated about the dowry
being given and additional amount given to the deceased. Except
making bald allegations that there was constant harassment for
additional dowry, no specific instances are given by P.Ws.1 to 3.
6. The other independent witness PW.4 turned hostile to the
prosecution case. P.Ws.7 and 8 who were the neighbours,
independent witnesses were declared hostile to the prosecution
case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of her
contentions, relied upon the following judgments; i) Amar Sigh v.
State of Rajasthan1, at para 23 it was held that merely using word
harassed or tortured would not describe the exact conduct of the
accused and it would not amount to harassment or torture; ii)
Vipin Jaiswal v. State of A.P2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that demanding in connection with the marriage would be demand
and subsequently for purchase of any computer to start business, it
cannot be said that it would amount to dowry demand.
2010 (2) ALD (Crl.)811 (SC)
2013 AIR SCW 1746
8. The appellant entered into the witness box and marked
Exs.D7 to D17, which are the discharge summary, MRI scan
screening reports, ultra sonography of pelvis and other tests from
various hospitals and scanning centers. It cannot be said that all
the documents and the scanning reports filed by the appellant are
all fabricated. Though witnesses from the concerned hospitals or
scanning centers were not examined to prove the documents, it
would suffice to produce those documents as the appellant was
present and he had taken the deceased to the hospitals, scanning
centers and also purchased medicines. In the said circumstances,
the evidence produced by the appellant cannot be disbelieved.
9. Further the fact that the deceased was suffering from
abdominal pain and having several ailments being treated at
different hospitals was deliberately suppressed. The parents of the
deceased P.Ws.2 and 3 admitted that deceased underwent
appendicitis operation and she also taking treatment for abdominal
pain and other ailments. It is for the investigation not to suppress
any information that comes to its knowledge. The continuous
treatment of the deceased, her appendicitis operation was known
to the prosecution witnesses and admittedly to the Investigating
Officer.
10. For the reason of suppression of material facts and P.Ws.1 to
3 making improvements from their earlier statements regarding
payment of money being given to the appellant on three different
occasions, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of doubt has to
be extended to the appellant.
11. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.433 of
2006 dated 31.07.2009 is set aside and the accused is acquitted.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.08.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.844 of 2009
Date: 04.08.2022.
kvs
