Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Bathini Sadanandam

Telangana HC4 Dec 2009CRLA/1757/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of husband and brother-in-law in an IPC 302 and 498-A case. Finding the evidence circumstantial and lacking strong corroborating circumstances, the court upheld the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1757 of 2009

¶3

Date: 04.12.2009

¶4

Between :

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶6

And

¶7

Bathini Sadanandam and another.

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1757 of 2009

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

¶12

Heard learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-

¶13

State. Though notices are served, none appeared for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

2. Appellant is the State and respondents are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Sessions Case.

¶15

3. This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Section 378 (1)

¶16

and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 20.06.2008, in Sessions Case No.374 of 2006, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad District, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.”).

¶17

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.Ws.1 and 1 performed the marriage of their daughter-Bathini Rama Devi, the deceased herein, with Accused No.1 in 1993. Accused No.2 is the brother of Accused No.1. Both the accused along with their fatherMogilli used to harass the deceased for additional dowry and killed her by administering hair dye i.e., Super Vasmol 33, which is a poisonous element, on 6.6.2005. Basing on Ex.P.1 report given by P.W.1, father of the deceased, a case in Crime No.104 of 2005 of Mandamarri Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. During the pendency of investigation, the father of the accused died, therefore, the case against him was abated. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C.

¶18

5. When the charges under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C., were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶19

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 13, besides marking MO.1, Super Vasmol 33 bottle. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2, relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.2 and

¶20

4, respectively, were marked.

¶21

7. The Court below, having considered the entire material including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present criminal appeal.

¶22

8. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is whether the Court below is right in acquitting the accused for the offences with which they were charged?

¶23

9. This is totally a case of circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as there was no direct evidence. The only strong circumstance pointed out by the prosecution before the Court below is that the deceased died in the house of the Accused No.1 and there is no access to anyone to approach the deceased to kill her. There are no definite motives and, even if there are any, they are not very relevant nor clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused.

¶24

10. We are of the view that mere death of the deceased in the house of Accused No.1, who is no other than her husband, itself cannot be construed as a strong circumstance to connect Accused Nos.1 and 2 with the offence. Except that, there are no other corroborating circumstances to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused.

¶25

11. Further, if really any poisonous element is to be administered, it can only be possible by force and in such a case, there would be some signs of struggle or resistance by the deceased. But, it appears that there are no such signs of struggle or resistance offered by the deceased. Therefore, the entire scenario presented by the prosecution to the Court below in order to prove the

¶26

guilt of the accused is full of doubts and controversies. In such circumstances, we cannot hold that the only strong circumstance suggested by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

¶27

12. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below, while arriving at the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the offences with which they were charged, in our considered view, are cogent and the evidence on record was well appreciated before arriving at such a conclusion.

¶28

13. For the foregoing, the criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed as having no merits.

¶29

14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 20.06.2008, in Sessions Case No.374 of 2006, passed by the Court below.

¶30

_________________________

¶31

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶32

JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 04.12.2009 Msr

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶34

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1757 of 2009

¶35

04.12.2009 (Msr)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Bathini Sadanandam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Bathini Sadanandam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padi Trigunsen Reddy Vs Jyothi Reddy

Mr. Varukala Gopala Krishna Vs The Government of A.P.

K. Raja Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police

Vasana Srinivasa Rao, Vs Yerramsetti Nagu Babu

The State of a.P., Vs Chereddy Ajay , Ajay Kumar

State of A.P. Vs Chemudugunta Babu , Venkateswarlu