Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Pawar Meghanath And 3 Others on 5 July, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.498 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. The respondents 1 to 4 were acquitted for the offences

under Section 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act by the Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the Sessions Judge') vide judgment

dated 06.12.2019 in S.C.No.175 of 2017. Aggrieved by the

same, the State filed the present appeal seeking reversal of the

acquittal and to convict the respondents for the said offences.

2. The facts of the case are that the marriage of the

deceased with 1st respondent/A1 was performed on

24.05.2016 and at the time of marriage, Rs.4.00 lakhs cash

and other house hold articles were given as dowry. After

marriage, the couple were happily leading their marital life for

about two months. However, the respondents herein started

harassing the deceased physically and mentally demanding

additional dowry. The deceased informed about the cruelty

and harassment on phone to her parents. For the said reason,

the father (P.W.1) of the deceased requested not to harass his

daughter. However, the respondents did not heed to the

request of P.W.1 and continued to harass the deceased.

Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased committed

suicide by consuming pesticides in the house of the first

respondent/A1.

3. The police, after concluding the investigation filed charge

sheet for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondents were also

charged for the said offences.

4. After completion of recording of evidence of prosecution

by examining witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 and marking Exs.P1 to

P23, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that no offence as

alleged was made out against the respondents and accordingly

acquitted them for the following reasons; i) the deceased, since

one year prior to the marriage was living with the first

respondent, for the said reason, the deceased was brought

back by her parents. However, she went back and stayed with

the 1st respondent/A1; ii) since the deceased was inclined to

stay with the 1st respondent/A1 in his house, the parents of

the deceased performed her marriage as admitted by the

brother of the deceased; iii) P.Ws.6 to 8 who are the relatives of

the deceased also stated that one year prior to marriage she

was living with 1st respondent/A1 and though they have made

efforts, the deceased did not return back for which reason, the

parents of the deceased performed her marriage with 1st

respondent/A1; iv) the other independent witnesses examined

P.Ws.9 to 21 did not support the case of the prosecution and

turned hostile; v) the question of giving dowry at the time of

marriage and other house hold articles and cash of Rs.4.00

lakhs is not believable in the set of facts wherein the deceased

was living with the 1st respondent/A1 one year prior to the

marriage and the parents having failed to convince the

deceased to come back had married her to the 1st

respondent/A1; vi) during the cross-examination, P.Ws.1, 3

and 5 who are the family members of the deceased admitted

that they were not in a position to incur even travel expenses

to marry 1st respondent/A1 and the deceased, as such, it

cannot be said that Rs.4.00 lakhs dowry was given; vii)

Admittedly, the respondents/accused were in better financial

position than the deceased and her parents, as such, any

demand for additional dowry is also doubtful in the present

facts of the case.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of his

contentions, submits that there are specific allegations of

dowry being given at the time of marriage which attracts

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also subsequent

demand for additional dowry leading to the suicide of the

deceased would attract Section 304-B IPC and also Section

498-A of IPC. For the said reasons, taking into consideration

of the evidence of the relatives i.e., P.Ws.1 to 6, the acquittal

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge has to be reversed and

respondents be convicted.

6. The facts which are admitted by the prosecution

witnesses are that the deceased had voluntarily been in live-in

relation with the 1st respondent-A1 one year prior to marriage.

In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the parents

of the deceased approached the respondents with marriage

proposal subsequent to which there was a demand for dowry.

The prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that P.W.1

could not perform the marriage for the reason of their

incapacity to even incur the travel expenses. When such is

the financial status of the parents of the deceased, it is highly

improbable that P.W.1 would have arranged dowry of Rs.4.00

lakhs cash and gold.

7. As seen from the evidence, though the deceased was

staying with 1st respondent/A1 from 2014 to 2016, P.W.1 or

any one from her matrimonial home never visited the

deceased. However, the allegations of dowry harassment are

made without giving any specific details, which would only

reflect any amount of suspicion on the allegations of P.W.1

being correct, as found by the learned Sessions Judge. In the

circumstances of the case, when the deceased was totally

ignored and left to her fate without even enquiring about life in

her matrimonial home, there is every possibility of the

deceased becoming sensitive towards the family members

neglect and committing suicide cannot be ruled out. In the

background of the witnesses admitting live-in relationship and

the total incapacity of the parents of the deceased to give any

kind of dowry, further when the independent witnesses have

turned hostile to the prosecution case, the allegation of dowry

and subsequent additional dowry could not be believed. The

learned Sessions Judge had the occasion to observe the

witnesses during trial, it cannot be said that the findings are

not cogent and not based on evidence on record.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of

Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that under

the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two

fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or

investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved

guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and

investigation. Both these facets attain even greater

significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in

his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption

of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116

indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be

established on record of the Court.

9. In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under : (SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. ... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

10. In the said circumstances, when the case is viewed in its

totality, the facts of the case rule out any acts by the

respondents either in taking dowry or harassing for additional

dowry. It is common that death in a family would result in

heated emotional situations and for the said reason it is

probable that the husband and in-laws are found fault with

and say that they are responsible for the suicide. Further, in

the absence of any specific reasons and also in the

background of the financial capacity, the version given by the

witnesses regarding dowry or additional dowry cannot be

believed.

11. In the circumstances, the well reasoned judgment of the