Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Buchireddigari Vijaynedar Reddy

Telangana HC8 Dec 2021CRLA/108/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal appeal against an acquittal in a dowry harassment case. The Court held that prosecution evidence suffered from discrepancies and failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death, barring the invocation of presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed; the judgment acquitting the accused is affirmed.

The State of Telangana Vs Buchireddigari Vijaynedar Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[³²³⁰¹

¶2

rN rHE HrGH couTrff T#^BITE oF TELANGANA

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE^--'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

CRIMI NAL APPEAL No : 108 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Appeal Under Se^ction g78 (3) & (1) of Cr.p.C. against the Judqment dated:.1-08-2017 in s.c.No.3os orztlori il"'tii""ortn" court of rhe vr Additionar District & Sessions Judge, at Medak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of Telangana, rep by The public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶10

AND

¶11

...AppellanUComplainant

¶12

' Bi,qi,"i:i,-%iwasi,ii..,0i,l,,g!,fl:i,f.,j:,1i,""ffi:iil;flr[1,1?"1?iiR;i_ 1444112, Main Road Jogipet -

¶13

,,:J::?"H,."d;'1fi :,,ft:Iei#,.Aff fl nul,,,:fi:?;ir?i:"

¶14

'fl [:JfJr'!'ffi

¶15

'Eff :lq.Ei?ru:#"ql?.fl y,,$ey:i'ifl""11,#fl 33,ft0"1,X,,33,Jfl?i.;,o"",

¶16

Ramraj Raiani, Wo. ar:lg:l-l:gdr,.Aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, N/o. Chandur Village, Now residing at l"og,pEt^--. -

¶17

Ramarai Santosh Redd, Aged a bout 34 vea rs, N/o.

¶18

Ch; ;;;; Wr"ii",'r.ri-,)}*3''1, ??l|3i$iddv,

¶19

... Respondents/Accused

¶20

IANO:1 oF 2018

¶21

Petition under section.5 0f Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or tne f,etiiion, the High court mav be pleased to condone the deray-46 i"vr'ir'piJlIting ,nu cririn"r appear aqiinst the order of acquittar of the accuseoTrespinoenis"iri s.c No. 369 of 2015 orn the file of Vtll Additional District & S"..r".-iragu,"frrfi,rO"*, dated 1_g_2017.

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: pUBLIC pROSECUTOR

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: PALLE SRIHARINATH

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

CRIMINAL APPEAI No.1O8 of 2O18

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the^judgment dated Ol.Oa.2Ol7 in S.C. No. 369 of 2O15 on the hle of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.11.2014 at 22.OO hours, P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter Rajitha with Accused No. I on 27.12.2012. At tJle time of marriage, he^gave dowry of Rs.5 lacs including cash and gold. After six months of the marriage, his daughter informed that Acused Nos. 2 to 5 harassed her physically and mentally on each and every^petty issue and demanding to^get additional dowry of^Rs.SO,OOO/- and subjecting her to torture. On 27.O1.2OI4, at^O3.OOp.m., Accused No.5 informed over^phone that his daughter committed suicide by hanging at about 2.30^p.m. It is stated^{that P.W.l} along with his family members rushed to Jogipet and^{found that} his daughter Rajitha died with injuries to her neck. He^got suspicion that Accused Nos. I to 5 murdered his daughter^and created the scene of suicide. Basing on the contents of^the complaint, Sub-lnspector of Police registered a^{case in Crime}

¶31

¶32

No. 205 of 2014, for the ol{cnces under Sectior-r 3O2 IPC. and Sections 3 arrcl 4 of the Dortrl, Prohibition Act. P.W.15 took up the investigarion immediatclr. On 02.12.2015, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested and produced before the Court for judicial rcmand.

¶33

'I'hc lcarned N,lagrstrate has taken the case on file for the offences punishablc rinder Sections 498-r, 3O4-B IPC. and Sections 3 and 4 of the [)owry Prohibition Act.

¶34

In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws. I to 15 and got marked trxs.P I to P17. On behalf ol the accused, Exs. D 1 to D5 wcre m a rked .

¶35

P.W.1 is fathr:r and P.W.2 is elder brother of the deceased. I'.W.3 is vrllagc elder. P.Ws.4,5 and 7 are neighbours. P.W.6 is photographer. P.Ws.8 and 9 are panch for scene of offencc and seizurc ltanchanalna. P.W.1t) is panch for scene of offence and inqucst panchalama. P.W. 11 is the doctor, who hcld autopsy ovcr the dead body of the deceased. P.W.12 is the Tahsildar, rvho held inquest over the dead body of the deceasect. P.W.13 is tlrr: Sub-lnspector of Police who received the complaint and registercd the case, P.Ws.14 arrd 15 are the Investigating⁽ )ffi cers.

¶36

¶37

The Court below after analyzrrrg^{the evidence of the} prosecution witnesses had observed^{that P.Ws. I and 2 are not} eye witnesses to the incident.^{There are several discrepancies} and inconsistencies in their evidence.^{P.W. I deposedthat three} months prior to the death of her^{deceaseddaughter,he wentto} the house of the accused and^{gavethree tulas gold- In contra,} P.W.2 deposed that three^{monthsprior to the death of her} deceased sister, himself and^{his father P.W.1went to the house} of the accused and^gave money^{for purchasing three tulas gold.} P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination^{that since the date of} marriage till the death of his^{daughter,theyall visitedthe house} of the accused and the accused^{also came to their house.The} deceased used to suffer from stomach^{ache.P.W.1 deposedthat} three days prior to the death,^{she telephonedsaying that} accused persons were^{harassing her for want of Rs.5O,000/-. In} contra, P.W.2 deposed^{that two days prior to the death of his} sister, she telephoned to her^{father aldinformed thatthe} accused were harassing^{her foradditionaldowry.P.W.2} admitted that 15 days^{prior to death, his deceased sister was} suffering from fever and^{was admitted in hospital, Narsapur for} two days.

¶38

¶39

I).W.3 rvho is Lhr: village elder stated that he do not know whethcr P.W1 gar.t lls.5o,00o/- or not. P.W. 1 informed that the accused dcmarrrlt'cl Rs.5O,OOO/-. Later he went to Sabarmalai on 29.11.20 14 and returned back and came to know that the deceased dicd by hanging in lhe house of Accused No. I. The evidcrrr:c of P.W.3 is not corroborating the evidence of P.W.l

¶40

P.W.4 is nerghbour of the deceased. He deposed that about trvo or three vcars back at about O3.OO p.m., he heard noise from the portiorr of Accrued No. 1. Immediately he went there and found the doors closed, then he opened the door forcibly and lound the dcccased Rajitha was hernging to the ceiling fan. At that time. acr:used No.1 was also lrresent. They lift the deceirsed from tlrr: ceiling fan and too]( her to the hospital for treatment. La1er, he came to know that the deceased Rajitha died. P.W.4 admitted in his cross examination that accused No. 1 and thc deceased were living r:ordially; one day prior to the incident, since the deceased was suffering from stomach pain, Accused No.1 asked him to get the rruto, then he brought the auto and Accused No.l shifted the deceased to hospital. Frorn the evidcnct' of P.W.4, it is macle clear that except opening thc door zLncl lifting up the deceased from the

¶41

¶42

ceiling fan, P.W.4 did not^{depose any incriminatingevidence} against the accused^{personsand his evidencedid not inspire} any conhdence.

¶43

i^{p.Ws.S and 7 are neighbours of the deceased.It is} stated that they^{heard sound from the portion of AccusedNo' 1,} then they went there and^{foundAccusedNo. 1 and Hamali} taking the deceased to^{hospital,later theycame to know that} the wife of Accused No.1^{died of hanging. They do not knowthe} reason for her death.

¶44

P.Ws.8 and 9 are^{panchwitnessesand they did not} support the case of the^{prosecution.Theycategorically deposed} that the police obtained^{theirsigrratureson some white pap€rs} and the police did not^{conductany panchanamaintheir} presence and nothing has been seized.

¶45

P.W. 10 is the^{panch witness} for^{the sceneof} offence. From his evidence,^{itis clear that policeconducted} scene of offence^{panchnamaunder Ex.Pg, drawn rough sketch} under Ex.P1O and also^{held inquest panchanamaunder Ex.Pl1'}

¶46

P.W.11 is the doctor, who^{conductedautopsy over} the dead body of^{the deceased on 28.17.2014and foundthe} injuries. He opined that^{the injuriesare ante-mortem in nature} and reason for cause^{of deathis 'asphyxiadue to hanging''}

¶47

¶48

I,.W. 12 is the l'rrhsildar, who held inrluest over the dead body of the dcceasecl. It is established fronr his evidence that he held inquest o\rer thc dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.1O.

¶49

P.W.13 is the Sub-lnspector of police who deposed that on 27 .11.2074, basing on the written complaint from P.W. 1, he registered a case in Crime No. 2OS oj' 2O14 under Section 302 IPC. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act and issur,'d FIR to all thc concerned. He admitted in the cross-examin:rtion that s<;enc of offence is situated half kilo meter away from their police staLion. The incident took place at about 02.30 1;.m. and Ex.pl as lodged at 10.00 p.m. on the same day. Iix. P I clid not contain the delay in todging the complaint.

¶50

P.W. 14 is the Inr.cstigating Officer. He admitted that P.W.1 did noL state belbre him when he presented Rs. 1,10,000/- to Accused No.l and he requested Accused No.I that he would pay Rs.50,t)00/- later on. He further admitted that P.W.1 did not state lrefore him that the deceased telephoned him three days prior to the incident for want of additiondl dowry of Rs.50,000/ and he informed the deceased that he would come and talk with the accused and the same

¶51

¶52

was not mentioned in Ex.Pl report. P.W.2 did not state before him whether they went to the house of the accused and requested them to wait for some days and that they would^pay the cash and gold by disposing the land. P.W.14 admitted that P.W.3 did not state before him as settlement talks took place at the house of P.W.1 and he stated before him as in Ex.D4.

¶53

.^{P.W. 15 is the CIP/ Investigating Offrcer. He deposed} that on 28.11.2014, he visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of P.W.10, L.W.15 and L.W. 16. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.l and 2 and L.W.2 on the same day. After obtaining the opinion on 29.11.2014 from the medical officer and basing on it, he altered the section of law from Section 302 IPC. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to Section 3O4-B IPC. and issued alteration memo. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not send the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and, L.W.2 to the Court along with inquest panchanama or with alteration memo

¶54

7 On a careful consideration of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Court below found that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed any incriminating evidence against tl e accused persons except P.Ws.1 and 2 who are father

¶55

¶56

and brother of the dcccascrl and their evidence Ls not reliable and trustworthy as they failcd to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruel[y or lrarassment with a demand of dowry 'soon before her death'. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 is not convincing and cogent to lrelieve the version with regard to harassment rneted out by the deceased 'soon before her death'. The Court below came to thc conclusion that th,l prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acrluitted the ar:cr.rsed.

¶57

Lt:arned Ifublic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State subrnits that thc Court below without apltreciating the cvidence of the prosecution witnesses had acquitted the accused. It is submittecl that P.W.1 clearly stated that the accused harassed the dece:rscd by beating her and clemanding Rs. 50,O00/- and three tulas go1d. Further, it is submitted that three months prior to her death, P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and gave money lor purchasing three tulas gold, but again the accused startcd harassing the deceased for Rs.SO,0OO/-, three days prior to death, his daughter telephoned to him and stated that the accused are harassing ht:r for want of Rs.50,O00/- and he informccl her that he would comc and talk with them, so the flncling ol tl.re trial Court that 'soon before her

¶58

¶59

death', there is no evidence to show^{that the deceasedharassed} is incorreit and the evidence of^{P.W. 1 is also corroboratedby} the evidence of her brother P.W.2.

¶60

P.W.3, who is an independent^{witness and whose house is} situated near the house of the^{deceased'sin-laws, who clearly} stated about the demand of dowry by the^{accused. Hence,} learned Public Prosecutor submits that^{the judgment under} Appeal is liable to be set aside.

¶61

Having heard learned counsel on either^side, perused the entire material on record.

¶62

The accused were charged under Section 304-8 IPC. To sustain the conviction under Section^{3O4-B IPC., the} essential ingredients to be established are

¶63

(i) Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily 'normal injury or otherwise than under a circumstance'.

¶64

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

¶65

(iii)She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment

¶66

by her husband or any relative ofher husband.

¶67

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for orⁱⁿ connection with demand of dowry and

¶68

¶69

(v) Such c melty or ha rassment is shown to have bccn meted

¶70

out to the woman soon before her death.

¶71

10In Sham Ldl v. State oJ Harydndl AIR 1997 SC 1873, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is imperative for invoking the presumption trnder Section 113-8 to prove that soon before the death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

¶72

ln Gurbachan Singh u. So:thpol Slngh2, the Hon'ble Apex Court obscrwed that as per the <:ircumstantial evidence, thc wife 'w,as compelled to take the extreme step of committing suicide as the irt cused had subjected her to cruelty by constant taunts. The suicide was committed within seven years from thc datc of mitrriage. It was held that presumption under Section 113-B is drawrr.

¶73

In the light of the settled law, to attract the charge under Section 3O4-B IPC. the prosecution has to prove beyond doubt ttrat the death which l-ras occurred is in relation to dowry alone and it has taken placc wittrin seven years of marriagc. Coming to the facts of the r:ase, P.W.1 is father. P.W.2 is brotl:er of the deceased. The Court after analyzing the evidence had

¶74

'^{AIR 1997 sc1873}

¶75

2 t99o crt.L.J. 562 sc

¶76

¶77

come to the conclusion that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence with regard to going to the house ofthe deceased, paying the amount and purchase of gold. It was also admitted by P.W.l that right from beginning, all of them were visiting the deceased house and the deceased along with the accused was also visiting their house. He has not stated before the police about giving gold three months prior to death. A careful analysis of the evidence of p.Ws. 1 and 2 reveals that it is full of contradictions. p.W.3 deposed that he is not aware of the money given to the accused. It is the evidence of p.W.4 that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain one day prior to the incident. Accused No.l asked him to get the auto then he brought auto. Accused No.l shifted the deceased to hospital. P.W.4 has also no knowledge about the harassment as stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2.

¶78

\ \

¶79

A close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witness reveals that prosecution miserably failed to prove tfre guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that .soon before her death" in connection with demand of dowry there was harassment which led to her death. The Court below had rightly evaluated ttre evidence and acquitted the accused. This

¶80

¶81

Court finds no grounds to lrltcrfere with the judgmcnt of the

¶82

Court below and thc Appeal rs liable to be dismisse,l.

¶83