Partly allowed

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad v. the State of a.P., Hyderabad

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLA/651/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction for dowry offences but quashed the convictions under IPC. The court reduced the sentence to the period undergone, noting lack of evidence regarding harassment. Bail bonds were cancelled.

What did the court decide?

The sentence reduced to the period undergone; bail bonds cancelled; conviction under Dowry Prohibition Act reduced.

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad Vs the State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 651 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 29.04.2010 passed Sc.No.429 ol 2O09 on the file of the Court of the V Additional lriletropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Vijay Kumar Goud @ Vijay, Sio K. Appaiah Goud, aged 29 years, Occ: Auto Driver R/o H.No. 10-4-8143, Addagutta Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad

¶10

...APELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1

¶11

AND^]

¶12

The state of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

CRLAMP. NO: 1038 OF 2010

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC NO. 429109 on the file of the V Addl. I\retropolitan Sessions Judge ([ilahila Court ) at Hyderabad dt. 29-04-10,^pending djsposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. SHAIK KARIMULLA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.651 OF 2O1O

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-8 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dortry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶24

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased daughter namely Sabitha was married to appellant herein in the year, ZOd+ ay giving cash of Rs.1,25,OOO/-, 8 tulas of gold and Rs.5O,0OO/- towards household articles at the time of marriage.

¶25

The learned Sessions Judge examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W. 11 and marked Exs.P. I to P.7 and found that none of the ingredients of Sections 304-8 and 498-4 of IPC are made out. However, the learned Sessions Judge believed the version of giving dowry at the time of marriage and convicted the appella:rt under Section 3 of the D.P.Act and acquitted the appellant and three others who were tried along with the

¶26

¶27

appellant for the offences under Sections 304-8, 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act.

¶28

According to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, there was never any harassment or continuous demands after marriage. Rs.i,25,000/- cash, Rs.50,000/- for house hold articles and 8 tulas of gold was given at the time ol marriage, however, there is no allegation of any demand. In the complaint/ Bx. P.3, it is not mentioned that there was any demand that was made at the time of marriage for giving the said dowry. However, the said version of demand was improved during the course of the trial

¶29

Conviction was recorded under Section 3 ol the D.P.Act for demand of dowry at the time of marriage. During the course of the trial it was stated that dowry was given in accordance with the demand and there 1s no crossexamination regarding the development made during the course of trial that the dowry was given on demand by the appellant. However, since there is no element of any kind of harassment meted out by the appellant or family members regarding dowry that was given at the time of marriage, this

¶30

)

¶31

¶32

Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is parily allowed. The bail bonds of appellant shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous

¶34

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed-

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR C*

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

'1. The V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad (With Records if any)

¶41

The X Additaonal Chief Metropolitan Magiskate, Secunderabad

¶42

3.^lThe Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy Di6trict

¶43

The Station house Officer, Tukaramgate Police Station, Secunderabad.

¶44

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statg of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶45

One CC to SRl. SHAIK KARIMULLA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies PR ./ <,/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310612023

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.651 of 2010

€. STAIE- o
1 t
Z
[ 2 []t NB c)
/
i).,: t.

¶53

PARTLY ALLOWING

¶54

THE CRL.APPEAL

¶55

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad v. the State of a.P., Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad v. the State of a.P., Hyderabad

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

Boggarapu Lingaiah Vs Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

Dasari Boomaiah Vs the State of Telanagana

Mohammed Aleemuddin Khan Vs the State of Telangana

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

The State of a.P, Vs Manthri Sailoo

Naman Baldawa Vs the State of Telangana