Viswanadh Darshan vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2472 Tel

Telangana High Court

Viswanadh Darshan vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No.726 of 2014

JUDGMENT :

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the

appellant/accused No.1 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., challenging

the conviction and sentence awarded to him as per the judgment dated

14.07.2014 in SC No.449 of 2011 by the learned V Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Pratap Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri

Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.Ganesh,

learned assistant public prosecutor representing learned public

prosecutor for respondent/State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2011 the police of

Saifabad received a complaint from Tulsi Ram @ Tulsi/PW1

complaining that his sister Varsha committed suicide by hanging due

to unbearable physical and mental torture and harassment meted out

by her husband, his sister and his parents. Accordingly, the police

registered a crime in FIR No.34 of 2011 for the offence under Section

304-B IPC against the accused and investigated into the matter and

upon completion of investigation, they laid charge-sheet in PRC No.6 of

2011 for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to

4, who are the husband, in-laws and sister-in-law of the deceased.

Page 2

After taking cognizance for the offences alleged in the charge-sheet, the

trial Court proceeded with the trial by completing all procedural aspects

and assigning sessions case number i.e. SC No.449 of 2011. During

the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 are

examined and documents in Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. On behalf of

the accused, no oral evidence is adduced however, English translated

engagement certificate with its original in Telugu language is marked as

Ex.D1. Saree pieces of the deceased were marked as MOs.1 and 2.

4. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material

available, the trial Court holding that within seven years of the

marriage, the deceased committed suicide at the place where the wife

and husband are living and though the accused/husband contended

that due to the ill-treatment of her parents and other family members,

his wife committed suicide, he failed to substantiate the same by

adducing cogent and plausible evidence, found the accused No.1 guilty,

convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for

the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under

Section 304-B IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default

to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Page 3

Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act

and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and

to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for

one year for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act ordering to run all

the sentences concurrently by setting off the remand period if any.

However, the trial Court found the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of DP Act and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

5. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court in convicting the

appellant/A1, as stated above, the appellant preferred the present

criminal appeal mainly contending that the trial Court against the

weight of evidence and probabilities of case, has erroneously convicted

him basing on the surmises and conjectures and also the interested,

inconsistent and discrepant testimony of prosecution witnesses mainly

PWs.1 and 2. The trial Court failed to consider the fact of non-

availability of eye witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case.

There is no specific allegation against the appellant that he meted out

harassment to the deceased/wife. The trial Court failed to consider the

fact that there is no practice of dowry prevailed in the caste of the

parties. The trial Court also failed to specify the fatal aspect of cause of

death of the deceased. While submitting the above grounds, the learned Page 4

counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions rendered in

Narayanamurthy Vs.State of Karnataka and another 1, State of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao 2, Harjit Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 3, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao 4, Naresh

Kumar Vs.State of Haryana 5, Narayanamurthy Vs. State of

Karnataka and another 6, order of this Court in WP Nos.6403 &

11387 of 2015 and Charan Singh Alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of

Uttarakhand 7. While relying upon the above referred rulings, the

learned counsel for the appellant contended that when there is no proof

for demand for dowry prior to death of the deceased, mere harassment

cannot be sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the

commission of suicide, harassment unless committed for purpose of

coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an

unlawful demand for property, etc., does not amount to cruelty, only in

the event of establishing cruelty or harassment by a husband towards

his wife for dowry prior to death then only a legal fiction can be created

under Section 304-B IPC in the absence of such crucial ingredients, the

death of a woman cannot be called as a dowry death and when the

contradictory statements are made by the prosecution witnesses the

AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2377

2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 917 (SC)

(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 463

2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 917 (SC)

(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573

AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2377 Supreme Court

AIR 2023 Supreme Court 2095 Page 5

husband and his parents cannot be convicted basing on the omnibus

and general allegation creating a mar on their reputation.

6. Per contra, learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently

opposed the present criminal appeal mainly contending that evidence of

prosecution witnesses categorically testified the harassment meted out

to the deceased in the hands of the accused and hence, the trial Court

had rightly found the appellant guilty while acquitting the other

accused and hence, it can be safely held that there is no perversity or

infirmity in the findings of the trial Court and hence, the said well-

versed findings cannot be disturbed basing on the general and shaky

grounds put forth through this appeal. Stating thus, he sought for

dismissal of the present criminal appeal.

7. This Court perused the entire material available on record and

the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In

the light of the rival contentions put-forth by either side this Court

proceeded with re-appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides.

8. The case of the complainant/PW1 from the inception and put-

forth through his evidence and also Ex.P1/complaint is that the

marriage of accused No.1 and his deceased sister was performed on

14.05.2004 by giving gold and silver ornaments substantially and also

spending huge money towards marriage expenses and also paying

Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1 to meet the marriage expenses from their Page 6

side and after reaching his sister to her matrimonial house, all the

accused started harassing suspecting her chastity, they don't even

pacify their lust for additional amounts even after giving a land

admeasuring 83 Sq.Yards to the accused No.1 and gold and money

given on the occasions when two children were born to the couple and

hence, after several incidents, the couple have set-up a separate family

at Chintal Basthi where her husband continued his harassment. In

that view of the matter, having vexed with such mental and physical

torture and harassment, his deceased sister committed suicide by

hanging on 18.01.2011. It is also the evidence of PW1 that on the

fateful day of death of his sister, the brother of accused No.1 called

PW1 and stated that his sister was not taking food for the last three

days and hence asked PW1 to come to settle the issue. Accordingly,

after informing the same to his parents, while PW1 was about to start,

meanwhile they received another call from accused informing death of

his sister. After reaching the spot, when PW1 asked the accused as to

how his sister died, accused stated that she slipped and fell down on

the ground and died but on his verification he found a ligature mark on

the neck of deceased accordingly, on suspicion he lodged a complaint

with police.

9. PW2 is the mother of PW1 and deceased and her evidence also

went on the same lines as deposed by PW1. PW3 a resident of

Puranapool of Hyderabad and acted as a witness for Ex.P2 scene of Page 7

offence panchanama turned hostile and during his cross-examination,

he denied the suggestion put by learned additional public prosecutor

that he observed a ligature mark over the dead body. PW4 a resident of

Chintal Basthi and acted as a witness for panchanama under Ex.P3

turned hostile and during his cross-examination he denied the

suggestion of learned additional public prosecutor that they have

observed the saree, which was used by the deceased for hanging. PW5

a resident of Chintal Basthi and acted as a witness for scene of

panchanama marked under Ex.P4 turned hostile and during his cross-

examination he denied a suggestion put by learned additional public

prosecutor that police seized pieces of saree from the scene of offence.

PW6 is a resident of Banjara Hills and worked in the shop of accused

No.1 and on 18.01.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., when accused No.1 asked

him to bring the keys from his house he went to the house and since

nobody opened the door, he saw inside the house and found the

deceased was hanging. During cross-examination PW6 stated that first

he informed the fact of hanging of deceased to the brother of A1 viz.

Vishwanath, and upon his instructions, PW6 informed the same to the

accused No.1 and upon closing the shop, when accused No.1 and PW6

came to the spot, there were four to five persons gathered and doctor

was also present and the dead body was laid on the ground.

10. PW7 worked as Deputy Tahsildar and on 19.01.2011, upon the

request of the police, she proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and Page 8

examined the dead body in the presence of two panch witnesses and

blood relatives and Ex.P5 inquest report was prepared. PW9 is one of

the witnesses to Ex.P5. PW8 worked as Associate Professor in

Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad

and on 19.01.2011 on the request of MRO, he conducted PME over the

dead body and issued Ex.P6 opining the cause of death as hanging.

PW10 is the photographer, who had taken the photographs of the dead

body. PW11 is the SI of Police, PS, Saifabad, who registered Ex.P7 FIR

upon receiving Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 and upon observing the dead

body and prepared Ex.P8 scene of offence with the help of mediators

and got photographed the scene of offence under Ex.P9 photos and also

the dead body under Ex.P10. PW12 is the ACP of PS, Saifabad,

investigated the matter and laid charge-sheet. During cross-

examination he denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the

accused that due to frustration only the deceased wife committed

suicide.

11. The accused tried to convince the Court stating that though the

parents and family members of the deceased had knowledge that the

deceased wife became pregnant, they did not visit her and hence,

having developed depression and feeling humiliation, she committed

suicide and that the accused never demanded or harassed her for

dowry or additional dowry and that the accused are not responsible for

the death of the deceased but PWs.1 and 2 and their family members Page 9

are held responsible for death of the deceased. However, the accused

did not make any whisper in this regard during their examination

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which fact makes the above defence as an

afterthought. Further, accused No.1 failed to substantiate the said

version by way of adducing any form of evidence. Further, accused No.1

though stated before the trial Court during his examination under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he would file a written statement, he did not

file the same.

12. The proposition of law is very clear under Section 304(B) IPC

that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily

injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within

seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death

she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for

dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or

relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

13. When the factual matrix of the case on hand are keenly observed,

admittedly the death of the deceased is not a normal one and she

committed suicide by hanging herself and the said fact is very much

evident from the evidence of PWs.6 to 9 and Exs.P5 and P6, which are

inquest report and post-mortem report. Further, the marriage of

accused No.1 and the deceased took place on 14.05.2004 and the

deceased died on 18.01.2011. Hence, it is safe-vouch to say technically Page 10

that the death of the deceased was within the period of seven years

from her marriage. When the question is whether the commission of

suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of

her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a

period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her

husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty,

the Court may presume under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act,

having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such

suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her

husband. When the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is evaluated, they have

categorically depicted the mental and physical harassment meted out to

the deceased. The accused could not elicit anything from their cross-

examination to disbelieve their evidence in this regard.

14. Under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, "dowry" means any

property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly

or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the

marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other

person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or

before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of

the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of

persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

15. When the facts of case on hand are perused coupled with the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is borne out of the record that though there Page 11

is no practice of giving dowry in their caste, on demand, at the time of

marriage, the parents of deceased gave 4 tulas of gold, Rs.50,000/- to

the accused to meet the expenditure for clothes, watch and other

articles, subsequently at the time of giving birth to two children they

have paid Rs.10,000/- on each occasion and also gave gold of one tula

and one and half tulas respectively on those two occasions and they

also bequeathed a house site admeasuring 83 Sq.Yards. As per the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the above mentioned amounts and gifts were

not given voluntarily but they were given on demand by the accused.

Therefore, the demand of the accused for the said gifts and amounts

would attract the ingredients of Section 2 of DP Act naming the same

as "dowry".

16. When the manoeuvre of the accused is observed, immediately

after the incident, the accused without informing the same to the

police, have removed the body from hanging and laid the same on the

floor and shifted the body to Sathanagalli where the parents of accused

No.1 resided. Further, accused No.1 tried to camouflage the cause of

death of deceased and stated to PW1 that the deceased fell down on the

floor and died. The said acts of the accused amount to scrapping of

evidence. The said fact is very much evident from the evidence of

PWs.1 and 12. PW12 stated that he conducted panchanamas at two

places where the deceased committed suicide and to which place the

dead body was shifted.

Page 12

17. It is true that there could not have been any direct evidence to

establish the atrocities, if any, committed by the husband against the

deceased wife within four corners of matrimonial home. It is difficult to

prove the same by way of direct evidence including examination of eye

witnesses. As per the evidence of PW1 it is revealed that the deceased

was not taking food for the last three days prior to the incident and

hence, he was asked to come to pacify the issue. As per the case of the

prosecution and evidence of PWs.1 and 2 it is evident that doubting the

chastity of the deceased suspecting her illicit intimacy with another

person, accused No.1 shifted their family to another place and they

both were living there. The above circumstances clearly go to show that

there were some skirmishes between the couple and that their marital

life was not sailing in smooth water.

18. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, when his wife committed

suicide, it is the bounden duty of the accused No.1/husband to provide

medical aid if requires and to complain the same to the police

concerned. But in the case on hand, accused have not taken such

steps and instead they have shifted the body from the scene of offence

without waiting for arrival of the parents of the deceased or the police

and failed to give proper explanation for doing such thing. The said act

proves the intention of the accused to cause disappearance of the

evidence.

Page 13

19. When the above factual matrix are taken into consideration, this

Court can safely held that the trial Court had found the appellant guilty

for the offences, as stated supra, upon considering the facts and

circumstances of the case as well as the evidence let-in and hence, this

Court sees no apparent error or perversity in the said findings.

20. However, taking into consideration the fact that since the

occurrence of incident i.e. from the year 2011 the appellant has been

roaming around the Courts to defend himself from the prosecution case

by facing mental agony, trauma and physical incarceration, treating the

said facts as special circumstances, basing on the proposition of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in VK Verma Vs.Central Bureau of

Investigation 8, Raj Kumar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of

Bihar 9 and Ravinder Vs. State of MP 10 this Court feels it appropriate to take

a lenient view in favour of the appellant by reducing the period of

imprisonment awarded against him for all the counts while upholding

the fine amount. Accordingly, the period of imprisonment imposed

against the appellant for all the offences is reduced sentencing the

appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years

each. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run

concurrently. The period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by

the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The

(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 485

(2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 589

(2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 590 Page 14

appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the

remaining period of sentence. The bail bonds of the appellant, if any,

stand cancelled.

20. Except the above modification in respect of the period of

imprisonment, the present criminal appeal is dismissed on all other

aspects.

21. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications if any pending shall

also stand dismissed.

______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :21-02-2025 Abb