Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Balusu Mohana Venkata Nagavendra Rao ... on 4 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.787 OF 2012
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1694 OF 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2012 is filed by the State, and
Criminal Revision Case No.1694 of 2009 is filed by the defacto
complainant. Both the cases are filed questioning the acquittal
order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.473 of
2006, dated 15.07.2009.
2. The revision petitioner/P.W.1, who is the father of the
deceased and examined as P.W.1, lodged a complaint with the
police alleging that the marriage of his daughter Srilatha (deceased)
was performed with A1 on 24.05.2002. At the time of marriage, the
parents of the deceased gave Acs.3.00 of mango garden, cash of
Rs.1,00,000/-, 20 tulas of gold ornaments, and other household
articles. A1 was working as a Scientific Assistant in Heavy Water
Plant, Aswapuram. Two or three months after the marriage, A1
started harassing the deceased mentally and physically, demanding
her to get additional dowry from her parents. A2, the mother-in-law,
and A3, the maternal aunt of A1, respectively, also abetted A1.
Unable to bear the said harassment, a panchayat was held in the
presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. At the said panchayat, A1 was
admonished and he was asked to take care of the deceased.
Thereafter, on 28.01.2005, A1 called his mother-in-law on the
phone and informed her that the deceased was not keeping good
health and that she was being taken to the hospital for treatment.
Later, another call was made informing that the deceased was
serious in the hospital. On the same day, the deceased died due to
poisoning. The complainant/P.W.1 suspected that the deceased
might have been administered poison.
3. On the basis of the complaint filed, the case was investigated
into, and a charge sheet was filed by the police for the offence under
Section 304-B of IPC.
4. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were
examined. P.W.1/the father of the deceased, P.W.2/the mother of
the deceased, P.Ws.4 and 5/the independent mediators, and other
circumstantial witnesses were also examined.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on
record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
i) P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the mediators to the panchayat held
in May 2003, did not speak about any kind of any demand for
additional dowry. In fact, the panchayat was held for the reason
that A1 was suspecting the character of the deceased.
ii) The investigating officer stated that he did not collect any
documents about the alleged gift of agricultural land at the time of
marriage.
iii) P.W.1, at the earliest point of time, did not speak about any
dowry that was given at the time of marriage, and it is a developed
version during the course of the trial.
iv) P.W.1 did not state that in the panchayat held in May
2003, A1 beat the deceased at the instance of A2 and A3.
v) P.W.3 also developed his version during the trial and stated
that an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and Acs.3.00 of land were given.
Further, P.W.3 claimed that he had mediated in the marriage, and
A1 suspected the character of the deceased. This is all development
made subsequently.
vi) The version given by P.W.3 about being part of the
panchayat and that A1 admitted to harassing the deceased is also
an omission.
vii) After May, 2003 there is no event or specific allegation
narrated by any of the witnesses that there was any kind of demand
for additional dowry from any of the accused.
viii) The only allegation is that the deceased called P.Ws.1 and
2 on the phone and informed them about the additional dowry
demand.
ix) P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, did not
state about any additional dowry being demanded by the accused.
x) The witnesses have developed their version regarding the
panchayat that was held in May 2003, claiming that it was towards
the alleged demand for dowry by the accused. However, it is
apparent from the record that the panchayat was not held for any
reason related to the demand for additional dowry. There is no
allegation of demand for additional dowry that was proven by the
prosecution, which was in proximity to the death of the deceased.
xi) Apart from the hearsay evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the
deceased informed them about harassment, no other evidence is
produced by the prosecution to prove that there was any kind of
additional dowry demand after the panchayat that was held in May
2003.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision
petitioner/P.W.1 argued that on the date of death of the deceased,
false information was given by A1 about the health condition of the
deceased. Such suppression of facts would clearly indicate that the
death was a consequence of the harassment for additional dowry.
Learned counsel further argued that P.W.8 is a witness who worked
in the office of A1. According to him, there was harassment by the
accused.
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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the
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
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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major
Singh and another v. State of Punjab 3, it was held as follows:
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the following
essential ingredients are to be established:
(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury
or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
(ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her
marriage;
(iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband;
(iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with
demand of dowry; and
(v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the
woman soon before her death.
10. A panchayat that was held in May 2003 was not on account of
an additional dowry demand, as admitted by the witnesses during
the course of their cross-examination by the investigating officer.
The entire version of there being an additional dowry demand is an
improvement from the earlier statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Unless the prosecution proves that there was a demand for
additional dowry and, consequent to such demand for additional
dowry, there was harassment, the offence under Section 304-B of
(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 201
IPC is not attracted. As already discussed, the allegation of
additional dowry demand itself is not proved, and further, none of
the witnesses have specifically stated what the harassment was that
was meted out. In the facts and circumstances, none of the
ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are made out. Learned Sessions
Judge had recorded acquittal and said findings are reasonable and
based on record. There is no need for interference in the said
judgment.
11. Accordingly, both Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Case
are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.04.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.787 OF 2012
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1694 OF 2009
Date: 04.04.2025
kvs
