The State Of Telangana vs Kappera Ramulamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 4227 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4227 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Kappera Ramulamma on 29 November, 2023

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the

judgment of acquittal dated 26.04.2023 in S.C.No.180 of 2021,

passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga

Reddy District. The offences alleged against the respondents/

accused are punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1

married the deceased. At the time of marriage, three tulas of

gold, 20 tulas of silver and a motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- as

dowry was promised to be given. However, gold and silver was

given, but, motorcycle was not given. For the said reason, there

was ill treatment of the deceased for fulfilling the promise of

giving the motorcycle. One day prior to her death, the deceased

went to the house of her parents and narrated the ill treatment.

Accordingly, on the next day, the parents came to know about

the death of the deceased by committing suicide by drowning.

3. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs 1 to 17

and marking Ex.P1 to P18 found that the accused have not

committed any offence and acquitted them on the following

reasons:

i) There is no evidence of passing on the alleged three tulas of gold and 20 tulas of silver.

ii) The accused and the deceased and her family survives from begging which is their only source of income and no other source of income is shown to prove that dowry was passed.

iii) PW2, younger sister of the deceased and PWs 3 and 4, relatives of the deceased, though stated that the deceased was ill treated, they admitted that they did not have any personal knowledge about any such harassment.

iv) None of the witnesses spoke about any specific incident regarding the harassment or demand for additional dowry.

v) PW5 turned hostile and PWs 6, 7 and 8 did not speak anything about the dowry given at the time of marriage except stating that there was a demand.

4. On the basis of the said findings, learned Sessions Judge

found that no case was made out against the accused.

5. The Appellate Court in cases of acquittal cannot interfere

unless the findings are contrary to the record or reasons given

lack prudence.

6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi

Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1,

held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the

appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view

can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on

record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal

adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in

reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding

the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in

reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons"

to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

there is a presumption which arises under Sections 113 and

113-B of the Evidence Act that any death within seven years is

on account of the harassment.

9. Though there is a presumption under the Evidence Act,

however, the prosecution has to lay foundation to draw such

presumption. In the absence of any tangible or direct evidence to

lay foundation regarding the harassment of the deceased, the

question of drawing such presumption does not arise.

10. In the absence of any evidence regarding harassment of

the deceased and all the witnesses having no personal

knowledge about such alleged harassment, only on the basis of