Partly allowed

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLA/1412/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court upheld the Sessions Judge's finding of guilt regarding dowry taken at marriage. The court reduced the sentence from imprisonment to six months and remanded the appellant to prison to serve the remainder.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to six months; appellant remanded to prison to serve the balance of the sentence.

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The AppellanUAccused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the high Court dated 24.11.2010 in CR|.A.IM.P. Bo. Of 2236 o'( 2O1O in Crl.A.No.1412 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA - ATHYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1412 OF 2010

¶8

Appeal under Section 37 4(2) ol Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 22.11.2010 passed in Sc.No. 37 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the V Additional lt4etropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dinqsh Prasad Srivsthav, @ Kishan Prasad Srivastav, Rl/o. 3-4-784, Gujirathigalli, Karvan, Hyderabid

¶11

PETITION ERYAPE LLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. D SANGEETHA REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. STIRENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1412 OF 2O1O

¶19

TU^DGMENT:

¶20

This criminal appeal is filed questioning the judgment of conviction passed by the V Additional Metropolitan^Sessions judge, (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, in S.C.No.37 of 201,0 dated 22"d Novemb er, 2010 convicting the appellant^{for the offenceunder} Section3 of Dowry Prohibition Act

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and^leamed

¶22

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The appellant was prosecuted for the offences ulder^Sections 498-A, 306 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry^{Prohibition Act.} However, the Sessions Court found that the^{appellant/accused} was not guilty of the offence under^{Sections 498-4,306 and Section}

¶24

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.^{However, convicted underSection 3} of D.P.Act.

¶25

..1 ril

¶26

KS,J CRLA 1412 2010

¶27

4 The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the deceased's marriage was performed on 30.03.2000. According to the parents of the deceased/P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant/accused demanded dowry and he received five (05) tulas of gold, cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, house hold articles and Chetak Scooter towards dowry.

¶28

Since, the other allegations under Sections 498-A,306 of the IP.C and Section 4 of D.P.Act leveled against the appellant were found to be incorrect by the Sessions Judge and no cross appeal is

¶29

filed by the State, the said allegations are not discussed in this judgment.

¶30

The learned Sessions ]udge convicted the appellant/accused only on the basis of the said allegation of taking dowry at the time of marriage

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that according to P.W.7/ Investigating Officer, P.W's 1 and 2 did not

¶32

¶33

3 KS,l CRLA 1412²⁰¹⁰

¶34

state that house^{hold articles and chetak scooter were Siven} towards dowry.^{Since it is an improvement made to falsely} implicate the^{accused, the versions of dowrycannot be believed.}

¶35

As seen from the^{evidence, it is specifically mentioned that} Rs.1,00,000/-^{cash and five (05) tulas of gold was given towards} dowry. The^{same is consistent in the evidence of P'Ws 1 and 2 and} the complaint.

¶36

g.' The offence under Section 3 of the DP Act is attracted^{if any} person gives or^{takes dowry and punishable for five (05) years'For} reasons to be^{recorded, the sentence of less than five (05) years can} be imposed. Under^{Section3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the} burden is on^{the person to} Prove^{that he has not committed any} offence. Except stating^{that there is no corroborationto the} evidence of P.Ws 1'^{and 2 that dowry was given at the time of} marriage, nothing^{is elicitedduring trial to disbelieve the evidence} of dowry..

a 'r4

K5,J CRLA 1412 2010

The offence is of the year 200g and it is informed by the counsel for tl-re appellant that though the children are with the parents of the deceased, the appellant is also supporting the

¶42

children

¶43

1-1.. However, keeping in view, the allegations made and in the present circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.

¶44

12 Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the concerned Magistrate shall cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

¶47

Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA^VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// dD SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The v Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahilacourt), At Hyderabad.} (With Records if anY)

¶50

The Vl Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Hyderabad}

¶51

3.TheSuperintendent,CentralJail,Cherlapally,RangaReddyDistrict(bySpecial Messenger/SPeed^off)

¶52

The Station House^{Officer, Kulsumpura Police Station,Hyderabad}

¶53

Two ccs to^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,Highcourt for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OPUCI

¶54

One CC to^{SRl. D SANGEETHA REDDY, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶55

Two CD CoPies

I t

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED: 1110712023

..t9 STAIE oA
;,r st tte
,,,- ..i)

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No,1412 of 2010

PARTLY ALLOWING

THE CRL.APPEAL

.) (q4 Hd-,'

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

Syed Younus Ali Khizar Vs Tanveer Begum

Nimmala Satyanarayana Reddy Vs The State of A.P

P. Venkatesh Vs Kotta Raghuvaedhan Reddy

Nallolla Jangaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bakka Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Marupaka Lokanatham, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Spl Pp for Acb., City RANGE-1