Dismissed

Y. Suryanarayana Raju v. Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

Telangana HC19 Nov 2021CRLRC/845/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana in a criminal revision dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an acquittal. The trial court acquitted respondents of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove specific mental andphysical harassment beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Y. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH ,, COI .or.IISXoP*1BhrE IDT E/'rrA +.._ oF TELANGANA

¶2

*, ofl, ' J TF, I l)"1r,.S XlB^{rfr,r.Ri)BIE,} n. o

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTCE SHAMEEM AKTHER CR|M|NAL REV|S|ON CASE NO: E4E OF 2006

¶5

Criminal Revision Ci ;:ui;r:H;ti1 ti"#ffiI^{r:;:1 "" 401'r cr P c asa ns'l'lhe} District. and Sessions .,ron", ,"rrl?u*l;::J[ llr:rr"::HJ

¶6

Between:

¶7

Y K ;r.S.,iynTBlBIS.na^{Raju, S/o. subba} Raju, Ased 45 years, Rl/o. Ujjanipur,

¶8

AND

¶9

... Petitioner/pW.1

¶10

$Nn$i1ii#H,f,lffi^{ffi }'}#;,?",#?naTft t.:;",,,

¶11

l,"lil#ilizu:,fi3fift1#l,ffi^{Alll#?iii,?:,,?r,ffi :i?,?:hii,iffi ::'}

¶12

'ffi*['*,'l".*Hfr fttH#{'ffi:*j?"f f.sitr},f,';[krF,[tr.

¶13

The State represented by its public prosecutor, High Court, HyOeraOaa.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt NAGESHWARA RAO pAppu

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3: NONE APPEARED Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

<*i%k

¶19

THE^{H( IN,BLEDT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶20

e-ril

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Crin^{inal Revision Case' underSections397 & 401 of} Cr.P.C.,^{is filed by the petitioner lde facto complainant'aggrieved} by the^{acquittt I recorded againstthe respondentNos'1 to 3/A'1} to A,3^{for the ofFenceunderSection3O4BIPC vide judgment} dated^{30'01'2(06,passedin Sessions case No'63 of 2005 by the} learned^{IV Adr itional Sessions Judge'Fast Track Court'Ranga} ReddY^District.

¶23

2 Heard^{bo h sides and perused the record'}

¶24

3 The lear^{ed counselfor the revisionpetitioner/de facfo} comPlainant^{w )uldcontend that though there is evidence of} PW.1,^{PW'5 ar d PW'6 to substantiate that the deceased was} subjected^{to d rwry harassment' soon before her death'which} occurred^{on 22 08.2004, the Court below erroneouslyacquitted} the responden^{Nos'l to 3/A'1 to A'3 for the offenceunder} Section^{3O4BI'C. The Court below ought to havecoTVictedand} sentenced^{the respondent Nos'l to 3/A'1 to A'3 for the said} prayed to allow^{the Criminal Revision} offence and^{ul imatelY} Case^as PraYed^for.

¶25

The learr^{ed Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State/}

¶26

4, respondent^{No. + supportedthe submissions made on behalfof} the revision^{pet tioner/de facto complainant'}

¶27

¶28

As seen^{from the materialplaced on record'the gravamen} Of the^{Charge against the respondent Nos'1 to 3/A'I to A'3 is} that they^{committedthe offenceunder Section 3048lPC' as the} daughter^{of petitioner/ de facto complainantcommittedsuicide} within 7^{years of her marriage and soon beforeher death' she} was harassed^{for dowry' The material witnessesin this case are} PW.1, PW.5^{and PW.6. PW'1 is the father of the deceased'PW'5} is the^{mother of the deceasedand PW'6 is the elder sisterof} PW.1. PW,1^{and PW.6 stated that one day prior to the death of} the deceased,^{they met the deceasedin a functionat the house} of LW.3-Narsimha^{Raju and the deceasedwept beforethem'} There is^{no evidence that the deceasedhad specifically informed} them that^{the accused had harassed her mentally and physically} in order to^{get additional dowry' In the evidenceof PW'1'PW'5} and PW.6,^{there is no specific mention of any of the} requirements,^{which constitutethe offence under Section 3048} IPC. PW,4-Deputy^{Collector/MROof QuthbullapurMandal' who} conducted^{inquest over the dead body of the deceased'deposed} that the deceased^{committedsuicideby hanging' There is no} doubtthatthesubjectdeathwascausedduetohanging. However, there^{is no evidenceto prove that the deceasedwas} mentally and^{physicallyharassedsoon before her death in order} to get additional^{dowry. The Court below had analyzed the entire} oral and documentary^{evidence on record and arrived at a} conclusion that the^{prosecution failed to provethe guilt of the} accused for the^{offence under Section 304B IPC beyond} reasonable doubt.^{The findings recorded by the Court below are}

¶29

¶30

¶31

based on evi lence on record. The Court below is^{justified in} passing the irrpugned judgment dated 30.01.2006. There is no illegality or pe versity in the order under challenge. The Criminal

¶32

Revision Case s devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordin 1ly, this Criminal Revision Case^{is disrnissed'}

¶34

Miscellareous Petitions, if any,^pending in this^Criminal

¶35

Revision Case ;hall stand closed.

¶36

SD/.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' e:to

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The lV Additiont I District and Sessions Judge,^{Fast Track (lourt,Ranga} Reddy District.(r'ith records if any)

¶39

The V Metropolit rn Magistrate, Cyberabad,^{at Medchal, Ran(la Reddy District} 3. Two CCs to the I ublic Prosecutor, High^{Court for the State o; Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT

¶40

One CC to Sri Nt^{geshwara Rao Pappu, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶41

Two CD Copies

¶42

One Spare Copy

MMI(

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112021

ORDER

CRLRC.No.845 of 200t

1r{ g STAf6
/r!"
lis
llo ()
0 i JA!{ 2022
?,
i. !'
Il t': :

¶50

DISMISSING THE )RIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶51

hfr)
7) l2' ;)

Y. Suryanarayana Raju v. Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Suryanarayana Raju v. Vadali Srinivasa Raju and 3 Others, Rep. by P.P.

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

Yada Narender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

V.Shankaraiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

G.Shiva Raj Vs Smt. G.Durga Bhavani and the State of A.P.

Kolanti Ramesh Vs the State of A.P.

G.S.Mallikarjun Vs Smt Koka Radha Devi

A.Ravindranath Vs M.Gopal Reddy and 2 Others, Rep. by Pp.