Telangana High Court
Vegeshana Venkata Kashi Viswanatha ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P. on 26 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1270 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, dated
25.11.2014, in S.C.No.671 of 2013, where under, the appellants were
found guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and convicted and sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- by each of the appellant and in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell:
3.1. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 01.11.2009
stating that the marriage of his brother's daughter, namely V. Kranti,
was solemnized with accused No.1 on 03.05.2009. As V. Kranti was
pursuing her B.Com final year at Eluru and accused No.1 was
pursuing his B.Tech. final year at Hyderabad, they were living
separately. V. Kranti used to visit her matrimonial home during
festivals, holidays and other occasions. On 31.10.2009 at 7.30 A.M.,
he dropped V. Kranti at her matrimonial home in Hyderabad. On
01.11.2009, accused No.2 telephoned him and asked him to come
immediately. When he reached their house, the accused informed
him that V. Kranti had committed suicide by jumping from the 4th
floor. When he questioned them about the incident, they stated that
they had no knowledge of how it happened and that they came to
know about it only when their watchman informed them. It is
further stated that for about four months prior to the incident,
accused No.1 had been subjecting the deceased to mental and
physical harassment for additional dowry and get money by selling
Ac.5.00 of land. The deceased used to inform her mother about this
harassment. In this regard, the parents of the deceased confronted
accused Nos.2 and 3 about the attitude of accused No.1 and
requested them to look after her properly and ensure that such
harassment was not repeated. However, the deceased committed
suicide. Hence, requested the police to take necessary action against
the accused persons.
3.2. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.1352 of 2009 was
registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section
304-B IPC and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation
filed the charge sheet and the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at Miyapur, took cognizance of the offence under Section
304-B IPC and numbered it as PRC No.186 of 2013 and committed
the case to the Court of Sessions and numbered it as S.C.No.671 of
2013 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.
3.3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P9 got marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were
examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.
3.4. Learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the oral
and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties,
acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charged offence under Section
304-B IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under Section
498-A IPC as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to
3 have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3,
and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for accused
Nos.1 to 3:
5.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that accused Nos.1 to 3
have not committed the alleged offence levelled against them. Even
according to the allegations made in the complaint/Ex.P1, charge
sheet and evidence on record, the ingredients of the offence under
Section 498-A IPC are not attracted. He further submitted that even
according to the prosecution, accused No.1 and deceased never lived
together continuously after the marriage, because the deceased was
prosecuting her B.Com. (Computers) Final Year at Eluru and
accused No.1 was prosecuting B.Tech Final Year at Hyderabad.
PW.6, father of the deceased, and PW.4, junior paternal uncle of the
deceased, used to drop the deceased at the house of the accused
whenever the deceased had holidays. Hence, the question of
harassment by the accused does not arise.
5.2. He further submitted that Ex.P.1 does not mention any dowry
i.e., cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 30 tolas of gold and Ac.5.00 gts. of land,
was allegedly given by the parents of the deceased to the accused
persons at the time marriage and also there is an interpolation in
Ex.P.1 that accused No.1 harassed the deceased to bring additional
dowry by selling Ac.5.00 of land, which was given to her. He further
submitted that in Ex.P.1, there is no allegation of entrustment of
giving dowry at the time of marriage and there is an interpolation
regarding demand of additional dowry. PW.13-Investigating Officer
admitted in his evidence about interpolation in Ex.P.1.
5.3. Even according to the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, the deceased
informed her mother only about the alleged demand of additional
dowry by the accused, however, she died prior to commencement of
the trial. The trial Court relied upon the hearsay evidence of PWs.4
and 6 convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section
498-A IPC.
5.4. He also submitted that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are interested
witnesses and the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC was based solely on their testimony and the
same is not permissible under law.
5.5. He further submitted that basing upon the evidence adduced
by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3
holding that they were not found guilty for the charged offence under
Section 304-B IPC, on the other hand, convicted them for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC basing on the very same evidence and the
same is not permissible under law.
5.6. He further submitted that PW.5 in her chief-affidavit stated
that the deceased informed her that she was harassed by accused
No.1 for additional dowry and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to support
him. However, in her cross-examination, PW.5 specifically admitted
that she had not stated the above said allegations either to the police
or in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
5.7. He also submitted that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 admitted in their
cross-examination that they were never informed directly by the
deceased regarding the harassment of accused No.1 for additional
dowry and that they came to know about the alleged harassment
only through the wife of PW.6. Their evidence, therefore, amounts to
hearsay, which is inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Basing upon such evidence, the trial Court
convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A
IPC.
5.8. He further submitted that the prosecution has not established
and proved the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC that the deceased
committed suicide on account of physical and mental harassment by
accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that such harassment constitutes 'cruelty'.
5.9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments.
i) Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand 1;
ii) Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa 2;
iii) Bakshish Ram and another v. State of Punjab 3; and
iv) Shoor Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 4.
6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:
6.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that
the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution, rightly convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1849
2 (2002) 2 SCC 619
3 (2013) 4 SCC 131
4 (2025) 2 SCC 815
the offence under Section 498-A IPC. There are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and
the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and on perusal of the record, the following points
arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad
at L.B.Nagar, convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
offence under Section 498-A IPC is sustainable
under law?
(ii) Whether accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for any
relief in the present appeal?
(iii) To what relief?
Analysis:
Point Nos. (i) and (ii):-
8. It is not in dispute that the marriage of accused No.1 with the
deceased was solemnized on 03.05.2009. PW.4 is the de facto
complainant/junior paternal uncle of the deceased and PW.6 is the
father of the deceased. PW.1 is the wife of PW.4 and PW.5 is the
cousin of the mother of the deceased. PW.4 lodged the Ex.P.1-
complaint on 01.11.2009. In the said complaint, he stated that the
deceased was prosecuting B.Com. (Computers) Final Year at Eluru
and accused No.1 was prosecuting B.Tech. Final Year at Hyderabad,
at the time of their marriage. He also stated that he and PW.6 used
to drop and pick up the deceased to the matrimonial home at
Hyderabad whenever she had holidays.
9. The specific contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
accused is that in Ex.P.1, there is no allegation that at the time of
marriage, the parents of the deceased gave Ac.5.00 of land to her.
However, subsequently included in Ex.P.1 that the accused have
demanded to bring additional dowry and also bring money by
alienating Ac.5.00 of land and the said allegations were included
subsequently and there is a material alteration in the complaint.
10. The record discloses that PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are close relatives
and interested witnesses and their evidence contains inconsistencies
regarding the alleged payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, 30 tolas of gold and
giving Ac.5.00 of land towards dowry at the time of marriage of
accused No.1 with the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge based
on the same evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the
accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC holding that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section
304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand, convicted
the accused under Section 498-A IPC.
11. The record further reveals that PW.5 in her evidence stated
that the deceased informed her about harassment by the accused,
but the same was not mentioned in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and she had not supported the case of the
prosecution.
12. Upon perusal of the statements of PWs.4 and 6 recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it reveals that they have not stated in
their statements that accused No.1 demanded additional dowry and
the deceased also no point of time informed them about any
harassment for such demand of additional dowry by the accused. In
the cross-examination and the statements recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C., PWs.4 and 6 stated that the deceased informed
her mother about harassment by the accused and demand of
additional dowry. However, the mother of the deceased had passed
away even before the case was riped for trial. There is no direct
evidence to connect the accused with the alleged cruelty or
harassment. However, basing upon the hearsay evidence of PWs.4
and 6, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the
accused harassed the deceased for additional dowry,
13. Even according to the prosecution, the evidence of PW.2 and 3,
who are the watchman and his wife, is relevant only regarding the
death of the deceased. PW.3, who worked as a maid in the accused's
house, stated in her cross-examination that the deceased used to
keep quite in a mood and when she questioned her as to why she
was keeping aloof, the deceased stated that she was not in good
spirits and not feeling well. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 also not
supported the case of the prosecution.
14. Similarly, the evidence of PWs.7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 only
establishes the factum of death and no eye witnesses were examined.
The prosecution miserably failed to prove about the element of
demand of dowry or harassment made by the accused to attract the
ingredients under Section 498-A IPC and also the prosecution failed
to prove that the specific nature of harassment has made by the
accused. The prosecution mainly relied on the hearsay evidence of
PWs.1 and 4 to 6.
15. In Bhagwati Devi supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reaffirmed that Section 498-A IPC is attracted where a woman is
subjected to willful conduct likely to of drive her to commit suicide or
cause grave injury due to mental and physical harassment, or where
such harassment is inflicted to coerce her or her relatives to meet
unlawful demands, including dowry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarified that persistent or proximate acts of cruelty are required, and
trivial marital disagreements do not meet the threshold. In Gananath
Pattnaik supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that cruelty
under Section 498-A is not limited to physical violence and may
include mental torture or abnormal behavior, reiterating that the
statutory definition encompasses both willful conduct causing grave
harm and harassment linked to unlawful demands.
16. In Bakshish Ram supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304-B-IPC,
as the mother of the deceased (PW-2) had no direct knowledge of any
harassment and her statements were purely hearsay, inadmissible
under Section 60 of the Evidence Act; further, the alleged demands
had been fulfilled by the parents and no other witness supported the
allegation of dowry-related cruelty. In Shoor Singh supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that although the testimonies of
PW.1 and PW.2 were admissible as part of the circumstances
surrounding the unnatural death, admissibility alone does not
ensure reliability, and such evidence must be evaluated against the
surrounding circumstances and other proved facts before being
accepted as m proof beyond reasonable doubt.
17. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
above said judgments supra are applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the case on hand also there
are no eye witnesses and there is no direct or reliable evidence and,
therefore, falls short of proving the essential ingredients of cruelty or
dowry harassment to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
18. It is already stated supra that, PWs.1 and 4 to 6 are interested
witnesses and close relatives of the deceased and the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC against
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section
304-B IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Section 498-A
IPC solely basing upon the circumstantial evidence of PWs.1 and 4 to
6 and whose evidence does not establish the ingredients of cruelty
under Section 498-A IPC, further, there is no eye witness to speak
about the cruelty or harassment made by the accused. Even
according to the prosecution, the deceased informed only her mother
about the alleged harassment, but neither the mother nor PW.6
lodged any complaint or brought the matter to the notice of any one.
Even according to PWs.4 and 6, the deceased never informed them
about demand of additional dowry and harassment by the accused
and their evidence is only hearsay evidence.
CONCLUSION:
19. In view of foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, this Court is of the considered view
that the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, convicting the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A
IPC is liable to be set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3
are deserve the relief of acquittal. Accordingly point Nos.(i) and (ii)
are answered.
POINT NO.(iii) :
20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment
passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at
L.B.Nagar, dated 25.11.2014, in S.C.No.671 of 2013 convicting the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-A
IPC is set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted
for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and their bail bonds shall
stand discharged.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 26.11.2025
mar
