The Public Prosecutor, vs Bellam Venkataiah Venkanna,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3801 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.941 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:

1. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-sole

accused for the offence under Section 304B IPC and 498A of IPC,

vide judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in

S.C.No.93 of 2003 dated 14.07.2004, preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-accused

was married to the deceased. The deceased is the daughter of

P.W.1, who stated that he paid Rs.80,000 as dowry and also gold

was given. After marriage, both the deceased and the appellant

lived happily for about one and half year and a son was born. The

accused picked up quarrel with his parents and shifted to Nakrekal

and lived in the house of one Mustafa (P.W.8) along with deceased.

The appellant used to quarrel with his deceased wife and doing was

doing acts which reflect that his mental state was not proper. The

accused did not take the deceased for delivery and she delivered

baby in the house itself. One nurse helped in the delivery. The

appellant picked up quarrel with her and P.W.3 for helping his wife.

P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 stated that stated that the deceased delivered in

the house itself since she was not taken to the hospital. They also

stated that accused used to beat his wife. P.W.4 is the owner of the

house where the deceased hanged herself stated that the accused

broke open the door and entered inside and found the deceased

hanging. P.W.5 also deposed as that of P.W.4.

3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that no case is

made out against the accused and acquitted him on the following

grounds; i) That it is the specific case of the witnesses that the

respondent-accused was mentally ill; ii) he was acting in a weird

manner by pouring turmeric and dettol in toilets and taking bath

with turmeric and dettol; iv) The Investigating Officer has totally

messed up with the investigation; v) there is a delay of 2 days in

filing the complaint, which is not explained; vi) the Investigating

Officer did not collect any poison which caused the death of the

deceased Balamma and two children; vii) though it appears to be

case of homicide, the Investigating Officer has filed a case under

Section 304B of IPC.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that this is a case

where the wife of the appellant and two children are found dead and

the trial Court has lost the sight of the evidence that was collected

during the course of examination. The statements of witnesses

P.Ws.1 to 6 would clearly indicate that the respondent was

harassing the deceased, as such, the finding of the acquittal has to

be reversed.

5. The trial Court found that there is no element of guilt which

was proved by the prosecution except stating that the acts or

behavior of the accused was weird manner in cleaning everything

with dettol or turmeric and being over possessive. There is

absolutely no mention about any kind of demand of dowry being

made by the respondent, for which reason, the question of

attracting Section 304-B IPC does not arise.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya

Pradesh v. Jogendra1, held as follows:

"9. The most fundamental constituent for attracting the provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that the death of the woman must be a dowry death. The ingredients for making out an offence under Section 304-B have been reiterated in several rulings of this Court. Four prerequisites for convicting an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B are as follows:

(i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance;

(2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401

(ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage;

(iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and

(iv) that such a cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry."

7. None of the ingredients that are required to record conviction

under Section 304-B of IPC are made out in the present case. For

said reason, the acquittal for the offence under Section 304-B IPC

cannot be reversed.

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

Nagesh v. State of Andhra 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 indicate a false implication. But then, this has to

be established on record of the Court.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

9. When two views are possible, the view which is favourable to

the accused has to be considered and more so, in a case of

acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in the finding of the

trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.

10. There is no other view, apart from the failure of the

prosecution in gathering evidence to prove the case against the

accused. In the said circumstances, when there is no evidence

absolutely to infer any act attracting offence under Section 304-B or

498A of IPC, the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court cannot

be interfered with.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel

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

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.941 of 2008

Date: 21.07.2022.

kvs