Telangana High Court
Sachin Uppal vs The Sate Of Telangana on 12 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.445, 500 and 501 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
These Criminal Appeals are preferred by accused No.1 and
the complainant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.09.2020 in
S.C.No.342 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy.
2. Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2020 is preferred by accused
No.1 questioning his conviction under Section 302 of IPC.
Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 are preferred by the de
facto complainant/mother of the deceased, questioning the
acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 in
Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2020, appellant/complainant in
Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 and Sri Arun Kumar
Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-
State in all the criminal appeals. Perused the record.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 was
married to Reetu Sareen (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),
on 30.04.2013. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.5,00,000/-,
gold ornaments, household articles, etc., were given as dowry. The
deceased was working as Air Hostess and continued her job even
after the marriage. A son was born to the couple during
November, 2014. The allegation against the accused No.1 is that
he was harassing the deceased, along with his mother/accused
No.2 (acquitted accused). PW.1 is the mother of the deceased,
PW.2 is the father of the deceased, and PW.3 is the sister of the
deceased. All three of them have stated about the harassment of
the deceased by the accused for additional dowry.
5. The incident happened on 19.04.2015. The accused No.1
called PW.1 on phone and informed her that the deceased was
facing difficulty in breathing. Both PWs.1 and 2 went to the house
of the accused No.1 at Ramanthapur. The deceased and the
accused No.1 had shifted to the house at Ramanthapur, 10
months prior to the incident. When PWs.1 and 2 went to the
house of the accused No.1, they were informed that she was
shifted to Matrix Hospital at Ramanthapur, and the deceased was
declared as dead. PWs.1 and 2 observed that blood was coming
out of the nostrils of the deceased, and they suspected that the
death was homicidal. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with
the police on 20.04.2015, at 10.00 A.M. Having received the
Telugu written complaint, the Inspector of Police/PW.19, who was
the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division,
took up investigation.
6. PW.19 went to the scene of offence, and also proceeded to
the mortuary of the Gandhi Hospital, where the dead body of the
deceased was lying. Having concluded the inquest in the presence
of the independent witnesses, the body was sent for post-mortem
examination. Initially, the post-mortem examination was
conducted on the same day, i.e., on 20.04.2015 by PW.16. PW.19
again gave a requisition for re-post-mortem examination.
Accordingly, the second post-mortem examination was done on
21.04.2015. The external injuries and internal injuries that were
found on the body of the deceased are as follows:
"External Injuries:
1. Abrasion of 1/2 * 1 cm was present over left
zygomatic area of cheek, brownish red in colour.
2. A vertical abraded contusion of 4 * 3 cm was
present over left temple area brownish red in colour.
3. Contusion of 7 * 5 cm was present across the nose
on both sides.
4. Contusion right zygomatie area was present in an
area of 5 * 2 cms.
5. Multiple ant-bite marks were present at various
places like feet, shoulder and abdomen which are
post mortem in nature.
Internal Injuries:
6. Contusion of scalp over middle and back of the
head more towards left occipital was present in an
area of 10*6 cm brownish red in colour.
7. Beneath the injury there is a corresponding
contusion of 7*5 cm on occipital bony proper.
8. Sub arachnoid Hemorrhage of 13 x 11 cm was
present over left occipital parietal area of brain.
9. Diffuse contusion of inner and posterior chest wall
was present in an area of 35 x 12 cm extending to
lower abdomen dark red in colour.
10. Left in over pelvic wall was contused in an area of
4 x 3 cms dark red in colour.
11. The approximate time of death is within 48 hours
prior to post mortem examination.
12. The final opinion for the cause of death to the best
of my knowledge and belief was due to "Head injury"
Ex. P14 is the PME report given by me."
7. PW.16 conducted the first post-mortem examination, and
PW.17 is one of the three doctors, who conducted the re-post-
mortem examination on 21.04.2015. Both the doctors who
conducted the post-mortem examinations have given reports
regarding the death of the deceased as on account of 'Head
Injury'. There are no variations in the findings of the post-mortem
examination reports, which are Exs.P13 and P14 respectively,
performed on 20.04.2015 and 21.04.2015.
8. Since the cause of the death of the deceased was due to
head injury and the incident happened in the house of the
appellant, the Investigating Officer/PW.19 effected the arrest of
accused No.1 and accused No.3, who is the friend of accused
No.1, on 23.04.2015. Both accused Nos.1 and 3 were remanded to
judicial custody after their confessional statements were recorded.
Accused No.2, who is the mother of the appellant/accused No.1,
was issued a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., since the
investigation revealed that the deceased was subjected to
harassment by accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.19 having examined the
witnesses and collecting the documents, filed a charge sheet
against accused Nos.1 to 3.
9. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge
framed charges against accused No.1 under Section 302 of IPC,
alternatively under Section 304(B) and 406 of IPC. Accused Nos.1
and 2 were charged under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Further accused No.2 was charged under Section
498-A of IPC. Accused No.3 was charged under Section 202 of IPC
for omitting to give information regarding the commission of
offence.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.3 was
present in the house when the appellant/accused No.1 assaulted
the deceased, resulting in her death.
11. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses
and considering both the oral and documentary evidence, found
that the accused No.1 was in the house when the incident took
place and he was not in a position to discharge his burden that
shifted on to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Accordingly, accused No.1 was convicted under Section 302 of IPC
and acquitted for the other offences. Accused No.2 was acquitted
mainly on the ground that she was living separately and omnibus
allegations were leveled against her. Similarly, the learned
Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case
under Section 202 of IPC against accused No.3 and
acquitted/accused No.3.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1 would
submit that the trial Court has committed an error in invoking the
provision under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. No where
has the prosecution placed any evidence to suggest that the death
was on account of any intentional assault by accused No.1. In
fact, accused No.1 was not present in the house when the incident
took place, and the death of the deceased being accidental cannot
be ruled out.
13. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava v.
State of Gujarat 1. He further argued that if the presence of the
accused No.1 is believed and if the accused No.1 is held
responsible for the injuries received, the offence would fall under
Section 304-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. The
relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
7. This Court in Dhirendra Kumar v. State of
Uttarakhand 2015 SCC OnLine SC 163 has laid down
the parameters which are to be taken into consideration
while deciding the question as to whether a case falls
under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 IPC, which are the
following:
(a) The circumstances in which the incident took place;
(b) The nature of weapon used;
(c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the
spot;
(d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body;
(e) The amount of the force used.
(f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight;
(g) Whether there was any previous enmity;
(h) Whether there was any sudden provocation.
(i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion; and
(j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue
advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the de facto complainant argued that the acquittal of the
accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the remaining charges
framed by the learned Sessions Judge was totally improper.
(2018) 4 SCC 329
Accused No.2 harassed the deceased, for which reason, accused
No.1 and the deceased started living separately at Ramanthapur.
PWs.1 to 3, who are the relatives of the deceased, have clearly
stated regarding the harassment of the deceased by accused
Nos.1 and 2 for additional dowry. Since the allegation is
consistent, such admission for additional dowry squarely falls
within the ambit of Section 498-A of IPC. The judgment of the trial
Court insofar as accused No.2 is concerned has to be reversed
and she has to be convicted under Sections 498-A read with 109
of IPC. The learned counsel further argued that the neighbors
have spoken about the presence of accused No.3 in the house
when the incident took place. Even according to the neighbors,
PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused No.1 after receiving
information about the condition of the deceased. In fact, the
evidence on record clearly shows that accused No.3, who is friend
of accused No.1, is present in the house when the incident took
place.
15. It is not disputed that the death was on account of head
injury. Both post-mortem examinations that were conducted on
20.04.2015 and 21.04.2015, by the team of doctors, would reveal
that there were injuries on the head which were visible, and the
cause of death was on account of the internal injuries. The
prosecution has not let in any evidence to suggest the manner in
which the incident took place or the manner in which accused
No.1 assaulted the deceased. It is incumbent on the part of the
prosecution to elicit from the experts the manner in which the
incident would have occurred, and an opinion ought to have been
taken from the experts stating that the death was on account of
the head injury. The probability of receiving the injuries and the
manner in which she was injured were not stated either by
PWs.16 or 17. Learned counsel further argued that the death
could have been accidental.
16. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly invoked the
provision under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and
shifted the burden on to the appellant/accused No.1 to explain
regarding the death of the deceased. It is not the case of the
prosecution that the accused No.1 had used any weapon or that
any blood was found either on the walls or on the floor in the
house where the incident happened. Admittedly, food was found
on the floor of the kitchen, which indicates that there was a
quarrel between the spouses when the incident of assault
occurred. The appellant took a defence and explained in the
statement of 313 Cr.P.C examination that the death was
accidental and by the time accused No.1 went to the house, he
found the deceased lying on the floor and unable to breath.
17. The above said explanation cannot be considered since the
food was found on the floor which reflects that there was a quarrel
between the spouses, after the appellant entered the house.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lavghanbhai
(cited supra), has laid down the parameters which have to be
considered while deciding the question of whether the case falls
under Section 302 of IPC or under Section 304 of IPC. Admittedly,
no weapon was used, and there is no explanation by the
prosecution that there was any kind of deliberate assault by the
accused No.1 to come to a conclusion that the injuries were
caused with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The
incident happened in the house and the prosecution has not come
up with any evidence to rule out the possibility of a sudden
altercation or provocation which led to a fight between the
spouses, resulting in the head injury of the deceased. In the said
circumstances, we are inclined to convert the conviction of
accused No.1 from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC.
19. Insofar as the appeals preferred by the de facto complainant
against accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, we have not find any
infirmity with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
Admittedly, appellant/accused No.1 and the deceased started
living separately at Ramanthapur. When they were living
separately, it cannot be said that accused No.2 was responsible
for any kind of harassment meted out for additional dowry. In
cases of acquittal, unless and until there are any compelling
circumstances that are shown, the findings of the trial Court do
not warrant reversal of the findings of the judgment.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.454 of 2020 is partly
allowed by converting the Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of
IPC, and accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo seven (7) years of
imprisonment. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal, and
therefore, Criminal Appeal Nos.500 and 501 of 2020 are
dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 12.06.2025
PNS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.445, 500 and 501 of 2020
Dated 12.06.2025
PNS
