Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... vs Konakalla Pulla Rao, Khammam And Anr., on 6 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.983 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning the
acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A2 for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act vide judgment in S.C No.496 of 2010 dated
11.01.2011 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Khammam.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the
wife of A1. The marriage of A1 and the deceased was performed on
20.03.2003 and they were living in Mandalapally village. They had
two male children. A1 was working as a car driver and the deceased
was a health worker. At the time of marriage, Rs.80,000/- cash,
gold and silver ornaments were given. According to P.Ws.1 and 2,
who are the step-father and brother of the deceased. Four months
prior to the complaint, both A1 and a2 started harassing the
deceased for additional dowry and a car. Unable to bear the
harassment, deceased earlier tried to commit suicide by pouring
kerosene on to herself. However, on 26.01.2010, the deceased
consumed some unknown tablets and shifted to the hospital. There
she died.
3. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 Telugu written complaint on 26.01.2010 at
2.00 p.m. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered
crime and thereafter took up investigation. Police went to the scene
of offence and conducted panchanama. Thereafter, inquest
proceedings were concluded and body was sent for postmortem
examination. Postmortem examination was conducted by P.W.8
and according to the FSL report, the death was on account of
consumption of over dose of benzodiazepine tablets.
4. Charge sheet was laid against A1 and A2 for the offences
mentioned supra. Learned Sessions Judge, having recorded
evidence of the witnesses and also considering the facts of the case
found that both A1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences alleged.
The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are as follows:
i) A1 and A2 were living separately, as such, the question of A2
demanding amount from the deceased cannot be believed.
ii) According to P.W.2, he went and saw the deceased after he
received information from A1 and he was informed by the deceased
that she consumed Malaria tablets. However, according to
P.W.5/Doctor, by the time he saw the deceased she was already
unconscious. However, P.W.2, who visited the hospital after the
Doctor/P.W.5 examined her, stated that she was in conscious state
and informed P.W.2 that she swallowed some tablets and she was
having remaining tablets in her bag. However, the said tablets were
not seized by the police.
iii) Even the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 are contradictory
regarding the statements made by the deceased since by the time
the deceased was taken to the hospital, she was unconscious and
later died.
iv) P.W.4, who is an independent witness, his evidence cannot
be believed since he had given version which is contradictory to the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
v) The deceased who is a health worker had overdose of
malaria tablets which would go to show that she has indulged in
self-medication.
5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another1, 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 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.
6. 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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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.
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."
7. There are no specific allegations that are leveled against A1
and A2 regarding the harassment that was meted out pursuant to
the alleged demand of additional dowry and for a car. The deceased
was working as a health worker and she was in possession of
malaria tablets. According to the trial Court judge, it appears that
she had taken self-medication which was overdose of malaria
tablets. Further, the version given by P.W.2 that the deceased
informed him for the reason of consuming tablets, she could not be
believed in the light of the evidence of P.W.5/Doctor. There are no
compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned trial
Judge.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:06.11.2024
kvs
