B.Narasimha, vs Akkenapalli Ravi,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5806 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.407 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/defacto

Complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Assistant

Sessions Judge at Bhongir, in S.C.No.317 of 2007 dt.17.06.2009,

acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections

498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent

was married to the deceased on 10.02.2005 and at the time of

marriage, a dowry of Rs.1,30,000/- was promised, however,

Rs.27,000/- was not paid. For the reason of not paying remaining

dowry, the 1st respondent harassed the deceased. Though, the

defacto complainant who is the father of the deceased offered

Rs.20,000/-, Accused No.1 did not receive the said amount and

demanded the amount of Rs.27,000/-. PW1 found injuries on the

body of his daughter at the time of her death and he expressed

suspicion that for the reason of extracting Rs.27,000/- from him,

the deceased was beaten to death.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police filed charge sheet

for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

5. Having framed charged under Section 498-A & 304-B of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents/accused

not guilty of the said offences on the following grounds.

a) Accused No.1 encouraged his wife to contest in Gram

Panchayat elections as Ward Member, though she was

unsuccessful, in the said circumstances, it cannot be said

that A1 did not have any affection towards the deceased.

b) Though, PW1 claims that injuries were received, PW6-the

doctor who conducted postmortem ruled out that there were

any ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

c) Though, several opportunities were given, the prosecution

failed to produce the Investigating officer who conducted

investigation.

d) Except stating that the accused was demanding the balance

amount of Rs.27,000/- which was promised at the time of

marriage, there is no other evidence to suggest any

harassment by the accused.

e) Further, PWs.1 and 2 being interested witnesses, the only

allegation of demand of Rs.27,000/- without corroboration

cannot be believed.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to consider the injuries

that were found on the deceased. The death occurred in the house

of her in-laws and such death was on account of the harassment

for Rs.27,000/- which was the balance of dowry. In the said

circumstances, presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian

Evidence Act has to be drawn and the accused failed to rebut the

said presumption. For the said reasons, the acquittal recorded by

the learned Sessions Judge has to be reversed.

7. As seen from the evidence on record, the only allegation that

was made by PWs.1 and 2 is that Accused No.1 was demanding

an amount of Rs.27,000/- which was outstanding that was not

given at the time of marriage. PW1 claims that he had offered

Rs.20,000/-, but, A1 did not accept the same. The said allegation

appears to be unnatural, for the reason of firstly, the deceased

being encouraged by A1 to contest in the Gram Panchayath

elections by incurring expenditure; secondly, there is no reason as

to why A1 would not have accepted Rs.20,000/- when offered.

Further, the said offering of amount of Rs.20,000/- does not find

place in Ex.P1-report that was given by PW1.

8. In Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala1 and Rajesh

Prasad v. State of Bihar and another2, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that in case of acquittal, presumption is in favour of

the accused. Unless there are glaring mistakes or any errors view

of law is taken, the appellate Courts cannot interfere with the

judgment of the acquittal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further

held that it has to be shown that there was miscarriage of justice

and while dealing with the evidence, the Court committed an error

and improperly considered and adjudicated the case.

9. In cases of appeals against acquittal, unless it is shown that

the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the evidence on

record or illogical or inferences drawn which are not plausible, the

appellate Court shall not interfere with the findings of the trial

Court. In the present case, except solitary allegation made by PW1

and PW2 that there was demand for Rs.27,000/-, there are no

other allegations against the accused. It is natural that the close

relatives who were parents and brothers tend to file complaint for

the reason of death of their close ones. It is also natural that there

(2022) 8 SCC 440

(2022) 3 SCC 471

would be exaggeration of any incident which is attributable to the

death of dear ones. However, in the background of the prosecution

failing to prove that there were any ante mortem injuries on the

body of the deceased and also in the background of Accused No.1

encouraging the deceased to contest Gram Panchayath elections,

the only allegation of demand of Rs.27,000/- appears to incorrect.

10. For the aforesaid reasons there were no grounds to interfere

with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions

Judge.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:14.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 OF 2010

Dt. 14.11.2022

tk