The State Of Telangana vs Bollepally Srikanth, And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2972 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 95 of 2020


JUDGMENT:

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda by judgment

dated 16.07.2019 in SC No.135 of 2018 acquitted the

respondents/A1 to A3 herein for the offences under Section

304-B of IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the State.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the father of

the deceased and he had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as

dowry and also gave household articles worth Rs.50,000/- and

three tulas of gold. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-

towards marriage expenses. P.W.1 father of the deceased,

states that the respondents/A1 to A3 started harassing the

deceased after the birth of the first child. The deceased stayed

with P.W.1 for one month and he threatened that he would file

criminal case against the respondents/A1 to A3. Mediation

took place in the presence of P.Ws.4, 8,9 and 10 and in their

presence, P.W.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-, as

such, respondents/A1 to A3 took the deceased to their house.

Thereafter, the 2nd daughter was born to the deceased and the

1st respondent/A1, for which reason, the deceased was again

sent to the P.W.1's house to get additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- and also 20 guntas of land. P.Ws.2 and 3, who

are sisters of the deceased corroborated the evidence of

payment of dowry and additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-,

however, P.Ws.2 and 3 did not state anything about any

mediation by the elders P.Ws.4, 8, 9 & 10. The deceased

committed suicide on 30.08.2017, for which reason, P.W.1

filed a complaint Ex.P1, which was registered as First

Information Report under Sections 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of

IPC.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, after examining the witnesses

produced by prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to

P9 and found the respondents/Accused not guilty of the

offence under Section 304-B of IPC for the following reasons; i)

The evidence of P.W.1 regarding the additional dowry and

panchayat being held was contradicted by his own daughters

P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of alleged mediator to the

panchayat P.W.4 did not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1

regarding the mediation by elders and that they threatened to

file criminal case; ii) the elder to panchayat P.W.8 did not

speak about any panchayat being held, however, he says that

disputes were placed before the village elders; iii) initial

complaint Ex.P1 does not speak about any additional dowry of

Rs.1.00 lakh and half acre of land; iv) The evidence of P.Ws.4,

8, 9 and 10 are contradictory regarding the payment of dowry;

v) beating of the deceased by A1 is not specifically stated by

any of the witnesses; vi) the case of the prosecution is that for

the reason of phone call from A1, the deceased committed

suicide, however, no proof of such telephone call is provided

by the police and further what transpired in that alleged

phone call made by A1 to the deceased before her death is not

stated by any of the witnesses; vii) there are no dates of dowry

or additional dowry being given, as such, the requirement of

harassment 'soon before death' is not made out to attract an

offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

4. The learned Sessions Judge by analyzing the evidence

has found that there are several contradictions amongst the

witnesses regarding the dowry given at the time of marriage,

additional dowry given and also altercation between A1 and

the deceased prior to her death. In the cases of such nature,

unless there are specific allegations as stated by the witnesses

regarding dowry and additional dowry, no inference can be

drawn about the allegations against the accused being correct.

Only test that can be made to verify the veracity of the

witnesses is from the consistency in evidence. Admittedly,

P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased did not speak about

any additional dowry being as seen from Ex.P1, which was

made at the earliest point of time. Though, the sisters of the

deceased P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed before the Court about dowry

they have given contradictory amounts with respect to the

dowry given. PW.1 states that Rs.3.00 lakhs was given,

however, P.Ws.2 and 3 says that Rs.2.50 lakhs was given.

Further, there is no mention by P.Ws.2 and 3 about any kind

of panchayat being held with respect to the additional dowry

being given. In cases where death occurs, it is natural that

tempers rise and people having lost their dear one's indulge in

making one another responsible for her death. It is also

common in the said circumstances several exaggerations are

made and also make false allegations against in-laws and the

husband for the reason of the death. It is common that the

parents of the deceased would find fault with the husband and

parents-in-law when their daughters dies after marriage.

5. Learned Sessions Judge had carefully scrutinized and

after examining all the allegations made against these

respondents/accused found that there are any number of

contradictions and omissions which infirmities can only give

rise to a doubt regarding the allegations be correct. Further,

the learned Sessions Judge has also found that there are no

allegations of harassment, which are in proximity with the

death of the deceased.

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

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

7. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are probable

and supported by the evidence on record. The grounds raised

by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that since the

death has occurred, a presumption arises that it was on

account of the harassment by the respondents/accused. It

goes without saying that unless there is convincing evidence to

infer that it was the accused, who had harassed the deceased

resulting in her death, no presumption can be drawn on

failure by the prosecution to prove such harassment.

8. At the cost of repetition, the contradictions and

inconsistent statements has resulted in acquittal, as found by

the learned Sessions Judge and there cannot be any other

view regarding the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

9. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere

with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, as such, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date:22.6.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.95 OF 2020

Date:22.06.2022

kvs