State Of Telangana, Rep By Pp, High Court ... vs Konda Bala Swamy, Hanwada And Anr.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 6475 Tel

Telangana High Court

State Of Telangana, Rep By Pp, High Court ... vs Konda Bala Swamy, Hanwada And Anr., on 13 November, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

            CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.966 OF 2017


ORDER:

The State has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the

judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, at

Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.452 of 2012, dated 26.05.2014 wherein

Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the

Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for brevity).

2. The case of prosecution is that the marriage of deceased

(daughter of the defacto-complainant/PW2) was solemnized with

accused No.1 about four months prior to the date of incident.

Accused No.2 is the mother of deceased. After marriage, the

deceased and accused No.1 lived happily for a period of one

month. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 harassed the deceased

mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity. Aggrieved by the

same, the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set

herself ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in

the Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for 2 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

treatment. Soon after receiving the information, Crime No.55 of

2012 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC.

3. Heard Sri M.Vivekandanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor. In spite of service of notice the respondents/accused

have not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not

having any other option except to proceed with the matter on

merits.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned

Assistant Sessions Judge without properly considering the oral and

documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, erroneously

acquitted the respondents/accused. He further submitted that the

prosecution discharged their initial burden by proving the offences

against the respondents by examining PW1 and PW5 and exhibits

P1 to P5. However, learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the

impugned judgment and acquitted the respondents only on the

ground that the statement given by the deceased/victim in exhibit

P2 dying declaration is contrary to the dying declaration recorded

by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station and the 3 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

same is contrary to law and liable to be set aside and

respondents/accused are liable for conviction.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Court, it reveals

that the victim herself poured kerosene on her body and set herself

ablaze and sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the

Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahbubnagar for treatment.

Soon after receiving the information, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Hanwada Police Station, registered Crime No.55 of 2012 for the

offences under Section 498-A of IPC. Learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate recorded the statement of victim on 23.03.2012 itself.

In her declaration, the victim stated that her husband alone is

responsible for committing suicide. Thereafter, on 24.03.2012

Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station recorded the

statement of victim. In the said statement she stated that accused

Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for her suicidal death. However, the

prosecution failed to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Hanwada Police Station. The record further reveals that as per the 4 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

entry in the inquest report, prosecution has not taken any steps for

examining the said Sub-Inspector of Police to prove the case. The

impugned judgment further reveals that PW2 who is the mother of

deceased/victim in her complaint stated that accused Nos.1

and 2 harassed her daughter mentally and physically suspecting

that the deceased/victim is having illegal intimacy with her own

father-in-law and after death of father-in-law, she is having illegal

intimacy with her brother-in-law. Due to the said harassment only,

the deceased committed suicide. However, the PW2 turned hostile.

Prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by

producing necessary evidence that the respondents/accused

committed offence under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.

6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluating the oral

and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, rightly

came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to discharge the

burden of proving the case against respondents/accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge while relying

upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bogi 5 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

Bhadraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and P.V.Radhakrishna

Vs. State of Karnataka 2 rightly acquitted the respondents/accused

for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.

7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi

Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 3,

held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the

appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can

be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record

has been analyzed. 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 4 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:

2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 825 (AP)

(2003) 9 ILD 200 (SC) 3 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 45 6 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

"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. 7 JSR, J CrlA_966_2017

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.

3. 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. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra, the reasoning given by

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, cannot be interfered since

they are based on record and reasonable. Hence, this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment

passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

appeal shall stand closed.

______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

Date: 13.11.2025 PSW