Telangana High Court
Kopire Bharath vs State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1296 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Appeal is filed by appellant/accused aggrieved by
the judgment, dated 25.08.2011, passed in Sessions Case
No.21 of 2011 on the file of learned III Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad, convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302, and 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC') .
2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent - State.
3. The background as narrated by PW1, who is the father
of the deceased, is that, one and half year prior to 2008,
deceased was married to appellant and at the time of
performing marriage, Rs.20,000/- cash and gold jewellery
were given to the appellant. After some time, the appellant
started harassing her. The appellant was addicted to
2 KS,J and JAK,J
alcohol and developed illegal intimacy with his own sister,
resulting in pregnancy. The appellant was offered one acre
of land for their livelihood, however, the appellant did not
change his attitude. On the day of incident, i.e., on
01.08.2009, the appellant went to PW1's house and
strangulated the deceased. While the deceased shouted for
help, PWs.3 and 4 went to the house and found the
appellant strangulating the deceased. On seeing PWs.3 and
4, the appellant fled.
4. The complaint was filed by PW.1 who narrated the
incident, and also mentioned that PWs.3 and 4 and one
Dandre Santosh went to the house and saw the appellant
strangulating the deceased and on seeing them the
appellant fled.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the eye
witness account of PWs.3 and 4, convicted the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that there is a contradiction between the evidence
of PWs.3 and 4. According to PW.3, when he went to the
house, the appellant was strangulating the deceased, and
3 KS,J and JAK,J
when PW.3 tried to catch hold of the appellant, he
absconded. However, PW.4 stated that the appellant, on
seeing PWs.3 and 4, fled from the scene of offence. Further,
by the time PW4 went there, the door was bolted from
inside, according to PW4. The said discrepancy creates
doubt regarding the presence of PWs.3 and 4 at the scene
and witnessing the incident.
7. The incident happened at around 3 P.M. Both PWs.3
and 4 narrated that they heard deceased shouting for help
and both of them went there. They found that the appellant
was strangulating the deceased with a wire. The post-
mortem examination conducted by PW.7 revealed two
ligature marks present, which completely encircled the neck
at the level of thyroid cartilage. The cause of death is due to
strangulation.
8. The version given by PWs.3 and 4 is corroborated by
the evidence given by the Post-mortem doctor-PW.7. The
wire which was used to strangulate the deceased was also
seized.
4 KS,J and JAK,J
9. The conviction under Sections 498-A and 302 of I.P.C.
is confirmed. Since the prosecution proved that the death
of the deceased was homicidal, the Sessions Court rightly
convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.
However, the Sessions Court erred in convicting the
appellant under Section 304-B of I.P.C., when there is no
evidence regarding demand for dowry in proximity with the
death. Conviction under Section 304-B of I.P.C. is set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed
setting aside the conviction under Section 304-B of I.P.C.,
while maintaining the conviction under Sections 498-A and
302 of I.P.C.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
__________________________________
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Date: 13.02.2025
EDS
