Sinde Nago Rao vs The State Of Ap., 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1701 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
                           AND
     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 of 2013

JUDGMENT : (Per Justice G.Anupama Chakravarthy)

        This appeal is filed by the de facto complainant, challenging

the judgment dated 22.02.2012 passed in S.C.No.175 of 2011 on

the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, acquitting

respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, who are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and who

were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w.

34 and 302-B r/w.34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

Perused the record.

3. The case of the appellant is that he performed the marriage

of his daughter (deceased) with Accused No.1 on 23.11.2009 by

agreeing to pay dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and also given a motorcycle to accused No.1 apart

from jewelry items and other house hold articles. He also

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

promised to pay the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- at the

time of Diwali festival of 2010. The deceased and Accused No.1

lived happily for some time and thereafter, all the accused harassed

the deceased with a demand for additional dowry and due to their

unbearable harassment, the deceased went to her parents' house

and stayed there for three months. On 10.11.2010, respondent

Nos.2 and 3 along with their tenant, went to the house of appellant

and took his daughter to the matrimonial house assuring that they

will take care of her. On 14.11.2010 in the evening, the deceased

telephoned to the appellant and informed about the harassment

made by Accused Nos.1 to 3 (Respondent Nos.2 to 4) with a

demand for additional dowry and that she was tortured by them and

requested the appellant to take her back. As the appellant was on

duty, he informed that he would come on the next day. But, on

15.11.2010 at 9 a.m., one Kadam Sanjay, the nephew of the

appellant, informed over phone about the death of his daughter at

the in-laws' place. Immediately, the appellant along with others

went to the house of the accused and thereafter, he preferred report

to the Police at Kuntala P.S., Adilabad District on 15.11.2010.

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered against A-1 to

A-3 vide Crime No.52 of 2010 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-B of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge

sheet was filed against all the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.

4. It is the contention of the appellant that inspite of substantial

evidence on record, the trial Court has acquitted Accused Nos.1 to

3 and the said judgment is illegal, arbitrary and against law, and

therefore, prayed to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and

to convict Accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein

either for the offence under Section 304-B or 302 of IPC.

5. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the

accused and benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused

when there is substantial material on record against them. It is

contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 categorically disclose

that the accused have harassed the deceased, for additional dowry

and killed her by throttling, which is corroborated by the evidence

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

of the Doctor. The Court below ought to have drawn presumption

under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and ought to have

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section

304-B of IPC as there is sufficient evidence on record. Therefore,

the learned counsel for appellant has prayed to set aside the

judgment of the trial Court.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2

to 4 has contended that the trial Court has properly appreciated the

evidence on record and extended benefit of doubt to the accused

and therefore, there is no irregularity in the orders of the Sessions

Judge and it needs no interference. Accordingly, he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent-State has fairly conceded that the prosecution has not

preferred any appeal against the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

8. Now, the points for determination in this appeal are:

1. Whether the trial Court is proper in acquitting the

accused for the alleged charges ?

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

2. Whether the prosecution has miserably failed to

prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable

doubt?

9. In this case, it can be seen that the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. PWs.1 and 2 are the

parents of the deceased/Archana; PW-3 is an Advocate; PW-4 is

the person who acted as elder for the marriage of the deceased with

Accused No.1 and he was also present while the deceased was

taken back to the matrimonial house of Accused No.1; PW-5 is the

Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased; PW-6 is the Tahsildar who conducted

inquest over the dead body of the deceased; PW-7 is the scribe of

Ex.P-1/report; PW-8 is the panch witness for inquest; PW-9 is the

person who informed PW-1 about the death of the deceased;

PW-10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered case after

receiving Ex.P-1/report; PW-11 is the Photographer who took

photographs of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the

Police; PWs.12 and 13 are the investigating officers who

conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of

IPC.

10. It is relevant to mention that the trial Court has framed

charges against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, and an alternative charge is also

framed for the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w. 34 of

IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

11. PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, testified

before the Court about the marriage which took place between the

deceased and accused No.1 i.e. on 23.11.2009 and at the time of

marriage, they agreed to give an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry,

two tulas of gold and one motor bike in addition to the household

articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- and that they have paid only

Rs.1,50,000/- and the balance of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid

at the time of Diwali festival. Their evidence further disclose that

Accused No.1 and deceased lived happily for a period of three

months and later, the deceased visited their house and informed

about the harassment made by the accused and that Accused Nos.1

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

and 3 and the mother of Accused No.3 came to their house and

took back the deceased, assuring them that they would take care of

the deceased very well. It is specifically testified by PWs.1 and 2

that on 14.11.2010, the deceased made a phone call to PW-1 and

requested him to take her back as she had fear of death in the hands

of the accused. On 15.11.2010 at about 9 a.m., they received

phone call from PW-9 informing about the death of the deceased.

On that, they rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead

body of the deceased in sitting posture to a wall and found that the

deceased was throttled and nail marks were found around the neck.

Both in one tone stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for

the death of their daughter. Ex.P-1 is the complaint/report lodged

by PW-1 to the Police, Ex.P-2 are the four photographs of the

deceased along with CD.

12. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by PW-1 that the

deceased was not having left eye, as she lost it in an accident which

took place three years prior to her marriage and an artificial eye

was inserted by the Doctors.

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

13. PW-3 is a practicing Advocate and is an independent witness

in this case. He testified about the marriage performed between

Accused No.1 and the deceased, the amount agreed to be paid as

dowry, the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage and

the promise made by PWs.1 and 2 to pay the balance amount at the

time of Diwali festival and also about the gold ornaments which

were given to the deceased at the time of marriage, the motorcycle

given to accused and household articles were worth of

Rs.1,00,000/-. It is specifically testified by PW-3 that Accused

No.1 and deceased lived happily for three or four months and

thereafter, the accused had sent the deceased to the house of PW-1

to bring the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-, for which, he

along with PW-1, telephoned to Accused No.2 and promised to pay

it at the time of Diwali festival.

14. The evidence of PW-3 corroborates with the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 as to the presence of deceased at the house of PW-1.

Further, Accused Nos.1 and 3 and the mother of Accused No.3

coming to the house of PW-1 and taking back the deceased to their

house and that on the said day, he along with one Saheb Rao and

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

Bhoja Reddy were also present. It is specifically testified by PW-3

that on 10.11.2010, the deceased was taken back to the house of

Accused Nos.1 to 3 and on 14.11.2010, PW-1 informed him that he

received telephone call from the deceased about the harassment by

accused Nos.1 to 3 and was also informed by PW-1 that he want to

bring her back to the house. Further, on 15.11.2010 at 9 a.m., he

was informed by PW-1 about the information received from one

Sanjay regarding the death of deceased. On that, he along with

PW-1, Bhoja Reddy, Saheb Rao and others went to the house of

the accused by 10.15 a.m. and found the dead body of the deceased

in a sitting posture. They also found that the mouth and neck

portion of the deceased were covered with a cloth and tied with

back support. Therefore, they suspected the death of the deceased

and gave a complaint to the Police against the accused. Though

PWs.1 to 3 were cross-examined at length, nothing could be

elicited in favour of the accused.

15. PW-4 was also an independent witness. He testified about

the marriage of deceased with Accused No.1 and part-payment of

dowry. His evidence is also in the same lines as that of PW-3.

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

PW-4 also deposed that five days prior to the death of the

deceased, Accused Nos.1 and 3 and other relatives came and took

the deceased to her matrimonial house and later he was informed

by PW-1 about the death of the deceased. It is specifically testified

by PW-4 that they found nail marks and other blackish marks on

the throat of the deceased.

16. The most crucial witness in this case is PW-5/the Doctor

who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the

deceased on 15.11.2010. PW-5 testified that basing on the

requisition of Tahsildar, Kuntala, he conducted autopsy on the dead

body of the deceased/J.Archana and found the following

post-mortem injuries over the body;

"1. Scratch mark of 2 inches length below right ear on the side of the neck.

2. Scratch mark of about ½ inch just below the left eye.

3. Scratch mark of about 2½ inches length obliquely on the left side of neck.

4. Scratch marks of about ¼ inch behind left ear.

5. An abrasion measuring ¼" X ¼" just above the left eye brow.

6. An abrasion measuring ¼" X ¼" on the left half of forehead close to the frontal hairline."

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

17. It is further testified by PW-5 that a haematoma measuring

3x4" was found between the under side of forebrain and

sellaturcica. Cerebral hemispheres pale. The viscera which was

collected during the course of autopsy, does not contain any toxic

substance and the cause of death of the deceased can be attributed

due to sudden intra-cranial hemorrhage as a post-surgical sequel,

resulting in cardio respiratory arrest and death. Ex.P-3 is the

postmortem report and Ex.P-4 is the FSL report.

18. In the cross-examination, it is specifically admitted by PW-5

that the deceased got an artificial left eye and the injury sustained

by the deceased is a piercing injury touching inside of the brain and

the cause of death may be due to the accidental injury to the eye

and the internal structures of the brain adjoining the back of the

eye. Further, in the cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that the

other injuries mentioned in Ex.P-3 may be caused when the body

was transported after the death.

19. PW-6 is the Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead

body of the deceased. Ex.P-5 is the inquest panchanama. PW-8 is

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

the panch witness for the inquest and scene of offence

panchanamas. His evidence disclose that they found the dead body

of Archana at the house of the accused and also found nail

scratches on the back side of the neck, left side of the neck and

they opined that the deceased was murdered/killed. It is also

testified by PW-8 that the Police have observed the scene of

offence and prepared the crime detail form, which is Ex.P-6 and

during the said time, four photographs of the dead body of the

deceased were taken.

20. It is relevant to mention that in Ex.P-5/inquest report, at

Column No.15, it is opined by the panch witness that the husband

and in-laws of the deceased have harassed the deceased for

additional dowry, beat her and killed her.

21. PW-7 is the scribe of Ex.P-1/report and his evidence disclose

that at the instructions of PW-1 on 15.11.2010 at Burgupalli i.e. at

the house of the accused, he scribed Ex.P-1/report and it also bears

the signature of PW-1. He admitted that he did not specifically

mention that he is the scribe of Ex.P-1.

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

22. PW-9 is related to PW-1 and the deceased. His evidence

disclose that he informed PW-1 about the death of the deceased. It

is specifically stated by PW-9 that on 15.11.2010 at 8.30 a.m., one

Sainath informed him about the death of the deceased, and in turn,

he informed it to PW-1. Though he was cross-examined, nothing

could be elicited in favour of the accused.

23. PWs.10, 12 and 13 are the Police officials, who have

registered the crime, present at the time of inquest conducted by

PW-6/Tahsildar over the dead body at the house of the accused,

prepared the crime detail report, recorded the statements of

witnesses, forwarded the dead body of deceased for postmortem

examination. Further, effected the arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 3

and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet.

24. The leftover witness is PW-11, who took photographs of the

dead body of the deceased at the instance of the Police.

25. It is pertinent to mention that Column No.7 of

Ex.P-5/Inquest report disclose that there were scratch injuries made

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

with finger nails on the back of the neck and back of the left ear of

the deceased and the left eye (artificial eye of the deceased) was

slightly opened. Column No.8 of the inquest report/Ex.P-5

specifically disclose that the dead body of the deceased was found

in a sitting position balanced to the wall, in the bed room of the

house. The mouth and left eye of the deceased were slightly

opened. The trial Court did not consider the aspect as to how the

death was caused, except relying on the postmortem report issued

by PW-5. The trial Court has only considered Ex.P-3/postmortem

report and came to the conclusion that the cause of death can be

attributed to sudden intra cranial hemorrhage resulting in cardio

respiratory arrest leading to death. Further, wrongly appreciated

that the reasons were not properly given by the Medical Officer as

the external injuries found on the dead body were postmortem and

that they were not bleeding. But, it is for Accused Nos.1 to 3 to

explain as to how those injuries were caused to the deceased when

the death of the deceased occurred within the four walls of the

house. Though it is the defence of the accused that the death may

be due to accidental injury, then it is for the accused to explain as

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

to why the dead body was in sitting posture in the bed room.

Admittedly, the death of the deceased is not a natural one.

Moreover, there are external injuries over the dead body of the

deceased. It is the specific evidence of PW-5 that the cause of

death was due to sudden intra cranial hemorrhage as a post-surgical

sequel resulting in cardio respiratory arrest. Therefore, the burden

is on the accused to prove that the deceased fell down accidentally,

due to which, she sustained intra cranial hemorrhage and died due

to cardio respiratory arrest. If that is so, as to why the dead body

was in a sitting posture, that too, in the bed room of the deceased,

has to be explained. Even in order to prove it to be accidental fall,

the nail scratches prove that those are not the result of accidental

fall. On the other hand, the defence of the accused was that the

scratches occurred over the dead body of the deceased during

transportation. But the inquest was held at the house of the

accused and inquest report reveals that the dead body contains

scratches by the time of inquest. Moreover, it is the evidence of

PW-3 that the dead body was tied with back support and made to

sit, which clearly disclose that the scene of offence was shifted and

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

was also screened away by the accused. Logically, a person cannot

sustain external injuries or internal hemorrhage while being in a

sitting posture. When any death occurred due to unnatural

circumstances in a house, it is for the inmates of the house to

explain as to how the deceased succumbed to injuries. It can be

therefore construed that the trial Court has not properly appreciated

the evidence on record and further wrongly appreciated that proper

explanation was not given by the Medical Officer with regard to

the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. However, the

evidence of the Medical Officer can only be appreciated as to the

cause of death and the Medical Officer is not expected to presume

the things and depose as to what has happened within the four

walls of the house of the accused.

26. In this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P.1,

wherein, it is held;

"To appreciate the submissions raised at the bar and to evaluate the correctness of the impugned judgment, we think it appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field which deal

AIR 2012 SC 2254

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

with the parameters for reversing a judgment of acquittal to that of conviction by the appellate court.

18. In Jadunath Singh and Others v. State of U.P. [AIR 1972 SC 116], a three Judge Bench of this Court has held thus:-

"This Court has consistently taken the view that an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. This power of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal was formulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, [AIR 1934 PC 227] and Nur Mohammad v. Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 151]. These two decisions have been consistently referred to in judgments of this Court as laying down the true scope of the power of an appellate court in hearing criminal appeals: see Surajpal Singh v. State [AIR 1952 SC 52] and Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715]. "

19. In Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad and Others v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1972 SC 622] it has been held that once the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view of the trial court is unreasonable, that itself provides a reason for interference. The two-Judge Bench referred to the decision in State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, [AIR 1960 SC 391] to hold that if the finding shocks the conscience of the Court or has disregarded the norms of legal process or substantial and grave injustice has been done, the same can be interfered with.

20. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1973 SC 2622], the three-Judge Bench opined that there are no fetters on the plenary power of the Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty to scrutinise the probative material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into an acquittal the homage of our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the finding without very convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration. This Court further proceeded to state that the cherished principles of golden thread to prove beyond reasonable doubt which runs

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

through the wave of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. Emphasis was laid on the aspect that a balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish the marginal innocents.

21. In State of Karnataka v. K. Gopala Krishna [AIR 2005 SC 1014], it has been held that where the findings of the Court below are fully unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record or suffer from serious illegality and include ignorance and misreading of record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal. If two views are reasonably possible and the view favouring the accused has been accepted by the courts below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. Similar view was reiterated in Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 2005 SC 1022]

22. In Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. [AIR 2004 SC 4662], it has been stated that interference with an order of acquittal is called for if there are compelling and substantial reasons such as where the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated.

23. In Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P. [AIR 2007 SC 3106], it has been observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has every power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole before it. It is, no doubt, true that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, but that is not the end of the matter. It is for Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles of law to re-appreciate and reweigh as a whole and to come to its own conclusion in accord with the principle of criminal jurisprudence.

24. In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 61], it has been reiterated that the Appellate Court can peruse the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal only if the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision is perverse.

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

25. In State of U. P. v. Ajai Kumar [AIR 2008 SC 1269], the principles stated in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573] were reiterated. It is worth noting that in the case of Sohan Lal, it has been stated thus:-

"This Court has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal."

26. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111], this Court held as under: -

"42 From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(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

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

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."

27. In S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman and others [AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 419], one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J.), after referring to the decision in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 69], considered various aspects of dealing with a case of acquittal and after placing reliance upon earlier judgments of this Court, particularly in Balak Ram v. State of U.P. [AIR 1974 SC 2165], Budh Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 2006 SC 2500], Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy [AIR 2008 SC 2066], Aruvelu v. State [AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2887] and Babu v. State of Kerala [AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 809], held that unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. Similar view has been reiterated in Ranjitham v. Basvaraj & Ors. [AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 803] and State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta [AIR 2012 SC 1].

28. Keeping in view the aforesaid well-settled principles, we are required to scrutinize whether the judgment of the High Court withstands the close scrutiny or conviction has been recorded because a different view can be taken."

27. Therefore, we can conclude that the trial Court has gone into

extreme presumptions and assumptions as to the posture of the

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

dead body and has extended benefit of doubt to the accused, which

is not proper. Admittedly, the evidence of PW-5 clearly disclose

that the death had occurred due to intra cranial hemorrhage,

causing cardio respiratory arrest. If at all any defence is taken by

the accused that they were not present in the house at the time of

incident, there should be some evidence before the Court to prove

the said alibi. Furthermore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5

corroborates the fact of demand of dowry by the accused soon

before her death. As per the scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1 to

6, it can be construed that; (1) the deceased died within Seven

years of her marriage; (2) the death is not a natural one and it

occurred under other than the normal circumstances; and (3) soon

before her death, she was subjected to cruelty with a demand for

additional dowry, which attracts the ingredients under Section 304-

B of IPC. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 304-B of

IPC.

28. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on

record and passed the judgment on presumptions and assumptions,

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

and therefore, the judgment of trial Court needs interference, and

the same is liable to be set aside.

29. The Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a Memo dated

13.02.2023, bringing it to the notice of the Court that accused No.2

i.e. respondent No.3 died on 26.08.2018. Copy of the death

certificate is also filed along with the Memo. In view of the same,

the case against accused No.2 i.e. respondent No.3 stands abated.

30. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment

dated 22.02.2012 passed in S.C.No.175 of 2011 on the file of

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad and convicting respondent

Nos.2 and 4/Accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-B of IPC. Respondent Nos.2 and 4/Accused Nos.1

and 3 are directed to appear before this Court on 13.04.2023 for

hearing on quantum of sentence.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________ M. LAXMAN, J

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 06.04.2023 ajr

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

20.04.2023:

31. In execution of NBWs issued by this Court, accused Nos.1

and 3 i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 4 are produced today before this

Court by the Police concerned.

32. When they are heard on quantum of sentence, accused No.1

stated that after the demise of his first wife, he contracted second

marriage; that he is having six months child; that his father died

and his mother is suffering with old age ailments; that he has no

properties and that all the family members are depending upon his

income. Accused No.3 stated that she is housewife; that her

husband died; that her family in poverty and that she is suffering

with old age ailments. In the circumstances, they prayed to take

lenient view.

33. Considering the nature of offence and the explanation

offered by accused Nos.1 and 3, we are inclined to take lenient

view while imposing quantum of sentence. Since accused Nos.1

and 3 are found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC,

accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

ML, J & GAC, J Crl.A.No.999 of 2013

period of eight (8) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and

accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default,

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Pre

and post detention, if any, shall be given set off.

34. The Police are directed to produce accused Nos.1 and 3

before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Cherlapally, who shall

receive accused Nos.1 and 3 pending conviction warrants. The

Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, is directed to forthwith issue

conviction warrants of appellate Court in terms of this judgment by

giving the details of pre and post detention period, including

present detention.

______________ M. LAXMAN, J

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 20.04.2023 Note: Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, today through Special Messenger.

B/o. TJMR