Telangana High Court
Aalla Venu , Venu Madhava Rao, Warangal ... vs The State Of Telagana, Rep Pp., on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1285 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This appeal is filed by appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2
aggrieved by the judgment, dated 23.10.2017, passed in
S.C.No.5 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge,
Warangal, convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Appellant/accused No.2 was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the
father-in-law of appellant/accused No.1 and father of the
deceased. The deceased was found engulfed in flames in the
house of appellants at around 5:30 a.m., in the morning on
29.12.2014. Hearing the deceased shouting, PWs.4 and 5 went
to the house of appellants, and appellants, with the help of
2 KS, J & JAK,J
PWs.4 and 5 extinguished flames. Immediately the deceased
was taken to the hospital. Information was given to PW3 and
PW1. PW1/father of the deceased was resident of Bangalore.
PW1 immediately came down to Hyderabad and filed a written
complaint/Ex.P1 on the same day, at 8:00 p.m.
4. According to PW1, his daughter/deceased was married to
accused No.1 and they have two sons. At the time of marriage,
Rs.2,00,000/- cash and Ac.1.15 guntas of land and 5 tulas of
gold was given to appellants as dowry. PW1 further stated that
for the past four years prior to her death, the appellants were
demanding additional dowry and also suspecting the character
of the deceased that she was having affair with someone else.
Panchayat was conducted in the presence of PWs.1, 3 and
others and appellants promised that they would take care of the
deceased. However, both the appellants started harassing the
deceased and murdered her by burning her with kerosene.
5. The investigating officer/PW17 went to the hospital and
conducted inquest panchanama in presence of independent
witnesses PWs.12 and 13 and also conducted scene of offence
panchanama in presence of PW10 and another. On 03.01.2025,
the appellants were apprehended. The confession of the
appellants was recorded and thereafter they were produced
3 KS, J & JAK,J
before the concerned magistrate and sent to the judicial
remand.
6. PW17 sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem
examination. PW15 is the postmortem doctor. According to him,
the cause of death of deceased was burns.
7. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants mainly
on the ground of harassing the deceased for dowry and accused
No.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for
murdering the deceased. Since deceased received burn injuries
in the house of the appellants, when they were in the house,
the learned Sessions judge found that the burden is on the
appellants to explain the circumstances under which the
deceased received burn injuries. In the absence of any such
explanation, the burden that shifted on to the appellants under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, remains unrebutted.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and all the witnesses
are circumstantial witnesses. The witnesses to the seizure and
confession, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. There
are no specific allegations leveled against the appellants
regarding the additional dowry. For the said reason, it cannot
be assumed that there was any motive on the part of the
4 KS, J & JAK,J
appellants that they have intentionally committed murder of the
deceased.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased received burn injuries
in the house of the appellants at 5:30 a.m., in the morning.
Hearing the shouts of the deceased, PWs.4 and 5 went to the
house of the appellants. According to PWs.4 and 5, the
appellants with the help of PWs.4 and 5 extinguished the
flames. Though PWs.4 and 5 were present, it is curious that
both of them did not ask the deceased the reason for receiving
the burn injuries. During the cross examination of PW5, PW5
admitted before the Court that there were 50 persons present in
the house by the time he went there. If at all 50 persons were
present, the version of PW5 stating that he was present and put
off the flames becomes doubtful. More-over, PW5 stated that he
and PW3 tried to put off the flames with a blanket. However,
PW3 did not state anything about putting off the flames, but he
stated that by the time he went to the house of the appellants,
he saw the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, he
informed PW1 and others.
10. The prosecution has to discharge the initial burden of
proving that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The act
of causing homicidal death must involve premeditation and
5 KS, J & JAK,J
with the intention of causing death, a person should have done
acts having knowledge that such acts would result in death.
11. The burns received by the deceased could be homicidal,
suicidal or accidental. During the course of evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, nothing was elicited to conclusively
suggest that death of the deceased was homicidal. Unless the
burden is discharged by the prosecution that death was
homicidal and the possibility of an accidental or suicidal death
is not ruled out, it cannot be assumed that it was homicidal. If
there are no eye witnesses to the incident, the events can be
reasonably reconstructed or the evidence available at the scene
should lend credibility to the version of the prosecution.
Nothing was done by the investigating officer to suggest that
death was homicidal, either by collecting evidence at the scene,
or in any other manner what so ever. For the said reasons, the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge, that death was
homicidal cannot be accepted.
12. Though the incident happened in the house of the
appellants, the time of incident was around 5:30 a.m. Normally
people either wake up or would be sleeping at that time. It is
not the case of the neighbours that they heard any quarrel in
between the appellants and the deceased, the previous night or
6 KS, J & JAK,J
just before they heard the deceased shouting. According to
PWs.3 and 5, they went there and both of them along with the
appellants put off flames and the deceased was shifted to the
hospital. The appellants did not specifically explain the reason
for the deceased receiving burn injuries, however their defence
is that they are not responsible for the deceased receiving
burns. As already discussed, the death was unnatural but
whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental was
not proved by the prosecution.
13. PWs.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 have all stated that the appellants
were harassing the deceased for additional dowry and
panchayat was also held. During panchayat, according to PW3
and others, the appellants alleged that the deceased was having
illicit intimacy with some other person. The allegations by the
husband or in-laws against wife that she was having affair with
some other else would amount to cruelty. Further, the
prosecution has also proved that there was demand for
additional dowry.
14. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against
appellant No.1/accused No.1 cannot be disturbed. However
appellant No.1/accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence under
7 KS, J & JAK,J
Section 302 of IPC. Since the appellant/accused No.1 is on bail,
the trial Court shall cause his appearance and send him to jail
to serve out remaining part of the sentence, if any. In so far as
accused No.2 is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment
under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry
prohibition Act, are reduced to the period already undergone by
her.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 04.02.2025
Kgk
