The State of a.P., Vs Annamdasu Srinivasa Rao

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.A., against the Judgment in S.C.No.451 of 2001 on the file of the Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist., dated 27.03.2003 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order of acquittal and convict the accused/respondents for the offence with which they were charged.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶19

1.K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO

¶20

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶21

2

¶22

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶23

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 27.03.2003 passed in SC No.451 of 2001 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, whereby the respondents herein/A1 and A2 were found not guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charge.

¶24

Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows.

¶25

i) Marriage between A1 and daughter of PW.1 namely Varalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as „deceased No.1‟) was performed at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam on 17.02.1995. A2 is the mother of A1 and sister of PW.1. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1. At the time of marriage, PW.1 paid Rs.50,000/- to A1 for marriage expenses. During their wedlock, they were blessed with a son namely Annamdasu Gopalakrishna (hereinafter referred to as „deceased No.2‟). A1 was looking after the welfare of one Alek Kumar, aged about 7 years, who is the son of his sister, as the said Alek Kumar lost his parents before the marriage of A1 and was spending more money on him by neglecting D1 and D2. It was disliked by D1. In that connection, quarrels ensued between D1 and A1 and once A1

¶26

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶27

3

¶28

came in a drunken state and beat her. While so, about 15 days prior to the date of alleged incident, A2 picked up a quarrel with D1 regarding seeing the welfare of Alek Kumar and A2 went to Challagudipadu village from the house of D1 with her household articles. From then, A1 started harassing D1 and was not looking after welfare of D1 and D2 properly. On the night of 21.06.2000, A1 picked up a quarrel with D1 and on the morning of 22.06.2000, as usual, A1 went to his duty at about 06.30 AM. At about 07.30 AM, some smoke was noticed from the house of D1 through door gaps, and on seeing the same, the neighbours informed the same to A1. Later, A1 rushed to his house, broke open the doors with the assistance of neighbours and brought out the burnt injured i.e. D1 and D2, from the house and while shifting them in a rickshaw for treatment, D1 died enroute and D2 died while undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli.

¶29

ii) Based on the report given by PW.1 under Ex.P1, PW.8 - the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2000 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station, under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, sent copies of FIRs Ex.P7 to all concerned and took up investigation. PW.6 – the Mandal

¶30

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶31

4

¶32

Revenue Officer visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the bodies of D1 and D2 under Exs.P3 and P4 respectively. PW.5 –Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Sattenapalli, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D1 and D2, issued post-mortem certificates Exs.P5 and P6 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of extensive burns. Thereafter, section of law was altered from Sections 302 and 304B IPC to Section 306 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

¶33

The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.64 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattenapalli, and as the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.64 of 2000 to the Court of Session, Guntur district, vide order dated 14.03.2001. The said case was numbered as SC No.451 of 2001 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet, for disposal according to law.

¶34

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶35

5

¶36

On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 306 IPC was framed, read over the contents of the charge and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶37

On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 and MOs.1 to 14.

¶38

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied.

¶39

On behalf of the accused, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked.

¶40

The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation

¶41

of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2003 on the ground that the prosecution failed to bring

¶42

home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned

¶43

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶44

6

¶45

Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present appeal.

¶46

9. Heard. Perused the material on record.

¶47

This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.

¶48

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶49

7

¶50

On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab¹ , wherein it was held as follows: (para 8)

¶51

“The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused

¶52

1 AIR 1962 SC 439

¶53

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶54

8

¶55

and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.”

¶56

Coming to the case on hand, as per the Ex.P1 report, the accused harassed D1 for additional amount by beating her and A1 is directly responsible for the death of D1. Based on the allegations made in Ex.P1 report, initially, the case was registered under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and after completion of investigation, section of law was altered to Section 306 IPC, as the investigation did not disclose that there was harassment for additional dowry or that A1 was responsible directly for the death of D1, It is no doubt true that D1 died due to burn injuries within 7 years from the date of her marriage with A1. The charge sheet allegations go to show that A1 was not present at the house and he was present at hospital at the time of incident. Thus, it cannot be said that A1 set fire to his wife to kill her for one reason or the other. In view of the same and in view of alteration of Section 306 IPC by deleting Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, the presumption of dowry death is ruled out. Thus, it would be considered that D1 died by committing suicide. Now it has to

¶57

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶58

9

¶59

be seen whether the prosecution has proved that the accused have subjected D1 to cruelty prior to the incident or abetted the said act.

¶60

PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of D1. Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are not the direct witnesses to the alleged harassment being meted out to D1 by the accused at any point of time. It is not the case of the prosecution that D1 informed about the harassment to her parents. PW.1 in Ex.P1 report did not state that his daughter used to inform him about the harassment being meted out to her by the accused. He did not depose that the accused harassed his daughter for additional dowry, as mentioned in Ex.P1 report. PW.1 also did not depose that A2 threatened his daughter, stating that she would perform second marriage to her son, as mentioned in Ex.P1 report. He also did not depose that A1 killed his daughter with an intention to contract second marriage to get money, as mentioned in Ex.P1 report. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 before the Court is inconsistent with the material facts of Ex.P1 report. Further, PW.1 did not depose that both the accused harassed his daughter for additional dowry as mentioned in Ex.P1 report. His evidence is limited to A1 only.

¶61

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶62

10

¶63

The averments of Ex.P1 go to show that PW.1 and his wife returned to their house after advising and adjusting between A1 and their daughter, but the evidence of PW.1 is to the effect that he kept his wife at the house of the accused, which is contrary to the material allegations of Ex.P1 report. Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 is contrary to the evidence of PW.1. She did not depose that herself and her husband together went to the house of the accused on receiving telephone information from her daughter. Her evidence shows that she alone went to the house of the accused. Hence the evidence of PW.1 is doubtful as it was not supported by PW.2. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not consistent and not corroborating with each other.

¶64

PW.3 is neighbor of the accused. Her house is situated on southern side of the house of the accused. She deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 07.20 am, she went to the house of the accused and handed over milk to D1 as usual, and at about 07.30 AM, she found smoke coming out from the house of the accused. In the meanwhile, people gathered there and broke open the doors of the house of the accused. She sent her son to Government Hospital,

¶65

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶66

11

¶67

Sattenapalli to get A1. Thereafter, A1 came and shifted his wife (D1) and his son (D2) to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli in a rickshaw. She did not state anything about the accused harassing D1 at any time. In her crossexamination, PW.3 deposed that A2 left to her native place about 20 days prior to the date of incident, as D1 was not serving food to her. Her evidence shows that A1 and D1 used to reside by the side of her house for about one year and both of them were happy with each other and she did not witness any quarrel between A1 and D1. Her evidence further shows that D1 was not looking after the nephew of A1 namely Alek Kumar and in that regard some differences ensued between A1 and D1. Though PW.3 spoke against the prosecution case, she was not cross-examined by the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW.3, who is the immediate neighbor of the accused. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused harassed D1 for dowry or on any other cause. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is inconsistent with each other to the material allegations of Ex.P1 report and there is no corroboration either by independent, direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused

¶68

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶69

12

¶70

harassed D1 for additional dowry or on any other cause at any point of time and subjected her to cruelty, prior to the date of alleged incident. Thus, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act that D1 committed suicide due to the abetment by the accused could not be drawn, though it is established that D1 committed suicide within seven (7) years from the date of her marriage.

¶71

PW.4 is the VAO of Vaddavalli village, who was present

¶72

at the time of observation of scene of offence by Police and at the time of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 by the MRO and one of the Panchayatdars. PW.5 is the Medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased. PW.6 is the then MRO of Sattenapalli, who observed the scene of offence, seized MOs.1 to 14 and conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased. PW.7 is the Photographer. The evidence of PWs.4 to 7 does not help the prosecution to show that the death of the deceased was due to abetment by the accused or at least the accused harassed D1 for one reason or the other.

¶73

PW.8 is the Investigating Officer. Number of omissions

¶74

were elicited from PW.8 with respect to the evidence of PWs.1

¶75

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶76

13

¶77

and 2. The omissions proved from the evidence of PW.8 establish that PWs.1 and 2 did not speak truth and they improved the case at the stage of trial to seek conviction of the accused.

¶78

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶79

case, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and there is no ambiguity in the same. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

¶80

In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 27.03.2003 passed in SC No.451 of 2011 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

¶81

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶82

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶83

Date:10.07.2025 Nsr

¶84

SRK, J Crl.A.No.641 of 2009

¶85

14

¶86

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY