The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs Thatipamula Ravi Kumar, And 2 Others,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1645 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1645 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs Thatipamula Ravi Kumar, And 2 Others, on 23 April, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.492 OF 2013

JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the

acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Nalgonda,

in S.C.No.327 of 2005 dt.30.11.2006, acquitting the accused for

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

Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased

marriage was performed with A1 with a dowry of Rs.60,000/-.

However, only Rs.30,000/- was given at the time of marriage. The

main allegation is that for the remaining Rs.30,000/- which was

promised at the time of marriage, the accused started harassing

her. Unable to bear the said harassment, she committed suicide.

4. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused on

the ground that the allegation of harassment was spoken to by

PWs.1 to 4. However, they have given different timings. PWs.1 and

4 say that it was three months after the marriage, PW2 says that

it was 15 days, PW3 says that it was one month after the

marriage. Further, there was discrepancy about abusing the

deceased for not getting dowry. Each of the witnesses had given

different places of such harassment. Further, as on the date of the

deceased consuming poison for committing suicide, it was at the

residence of her parents. The learned Sessions Judge further

found that no specific reasons were given by the prosecution

witnesses as to why the deceased was staying at her parents

house. There was no incident that was narrated immediately prior

to the consumption of poison by the deceased. Collectively

considering of the said discrepancies and exaggeration made by

the witnesses during the course of trial, the learned Sessions

Judge found that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has

also caused prejudice to the accused. The Investigating Officer

was summoned twice. Since he did not appear, his evidence was

closed. Again on application by the prosecution under Section 311

of Cr.P.C., summons were issued to the Investigating Officer. Even

then, the Investigating Officer did not appear of which reason his

evidence was closed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is consistent regarding the demand that

was made. However, they have given different timings. Such

different timing is of no consequence when the crux of the

allegation regarding demand was spoken to by PWs.1 to 4.

Further, when the witnesses have stated regarding the

harassment, non-examination of Investigating Officer is of no

consequence. However, the learned sessions Judge had given

much importance to non-examination of Investigating Officer

which is incorrect.

6. Though, the learned Sessions Judge found that the

prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer, the

acquittal was not recorded only on the ground of such non-

examination. Several discrepancies regarding the demand and

harassment which go to the root of the case were elicited during

the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 4. On account of such

discrepancies and exaggerations which were made by the

witnesses during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge

found that the Investigating Officer ought to have been examined

to confront him with the said omissions, contradictions and

exaggerations.

7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

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.

8. 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:

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.

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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."

9. In the present facts of the case, I do not find any infirmity

when the findings of harassment, demand are contradictory to one

another. Further, the incident of suicide had taken place in the

house of the parents of the deceased. There is no incident that is

narrated soon prior to the death. Unless it is proved by the

prosecution, that in proximity with death, there was demand for

dowry or unlawful demand that was made and pursuant to such

unlawful demand there was harassment, the ingredients of

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied.

10. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable on

the basis of evidence. There are no grounds to interfere with the

order of acquittal.