Dismissed

Balaji Dongre, Maharastra State v. P.P., Hyd and 6 Othrs

Telangana HC19 Nov 2024CRLA/1049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant against acquittal in a dowry death case. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's view that prosecution failed to prove specific ingredients of Section 304-B IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court.

Balaji Dongre, Maharastra State Vs P.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴²⁸ ]

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:^'1049 OF 2016

¶7

Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C against the^judgment dated 05-0'l2016 made in S.C.NO. 31 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Balaji Dongre S/o Dondi Ram, aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o Gharmi Village, Lathur District. Maharastra Stale

¶10

...APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT

¶14

Manjrekar Husnaji @ Hussaini S/o Parbhaji, age 27 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶15

Smt Manjrekar Laxmibai @ Munni, Wo Pentaji, aged 37^years, Occ Housewife

¶16

4, Manjrekar Balaji @ Balan S/o Pentaji aged 20 years, Occ Student

¶17

Manjrekar Anasuya @ Anshabai Wo Bassaji, aged 27^yearc

¶18

Manjrekar Parbhaji S/o late Bassaji, aged 82^years, Occ Agriculture.

¶19

Durkawar Balaji @ Balu S/o Nagnath, aged 28 years

¶20

(Respondents 2 to 7 are R/o Jukkal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSEO

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 2, 4, 5, and 7: Sri T. Srujan Kumar

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 6: Sri B. paramesewara Rao

¶27

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AI{D THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O49 OF 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶31

l. The Criminal appeal is filed by the appellantcomplainant questioning the Judgment dated 05.01.2016 in S.C. No.3l of 2Ol4 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, wherein the accused Nos. I to 6 were acquitted for the offences under Section 3O2, 109 read with Sections 302 and 506 of Indian Pena-l Code (for short "lPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶32

Heard Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants-accused, Sri Arun Kumar Dodia, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1State, Sri.B.Parameshwara Rao, learned legal-aid counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 6, and Sri T.Srujan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2,4, 5 and 7 and perused the record.

¶33

The prosecution case is that accused No.l is the husbald of PW. 1's daughter, who was killed by the accused.

¶34

2 KS.J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l049^{o.f 2016}

¶35

The marriage of accused^{No. 1 was performed with the} deceased on 07.O4.2O13 and^{at the time of marriage, dowry} was given in the form of^{cash and gold. Accused No.1 arrd} deceased lived happity for a^{period of one year. Thereafter,} the deceased 'r,'as^{subjected to harassment by the accused} for getting additional^{dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-for purchasing} land. The deceased^{was physicallyand mentallyharassed} on a daily basis, abusing^{her in filthy language.Unable to} bear the harassment meted^{out by accusedNo. 1, in-laws} and sister-in-lau', the^{deceased committedsuicideon} 06.04.2013. The said information^{was passed on to the de-} facto complainant, who^{went to the hospital and saw his} daughter. Thereafter, PW.^{1 gave a typed Telugucomplaint} to the police,^{rvhichwas marked as Ex.Pl.}

¶36

On the basis of the complaint,^{the police investigated} the case and hled charge^{sheet againstaccusedNos.l to 6} for the offence under Section 304-8^{of IPC, alternatively} Sections 302 and 109 read^{with Sections 302 and 506 of} IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition^Act.

¶37

KS,J & SK,J Crl.ANo.l049 of 2016

¶38

¶39

The learned Sessions Judge, ha'.ring framed charges for the said offences, examined PWs.l to i7 on behalf of the prosecution and also marked Ex.Pl to Pl 1. MOs. 1 to 3 were a-lso brought on record on beha-lf of the prosecution. DW.1 was examined on behalf of the accused.

¶40

The learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence placed on record by both the prosecution and defense, acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

¶41

The prosecution did not prove that there was harassment by the accused even six months prior to the death of the deceased.

¶42

It is evident from the cross-examination of PW.2 that the deceased was treated in Lathur Hospital for stomach pain. In fact, PW's.4 to 6 independent witnesses have stated that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain.

¶43

PWs. 1 and 2 who are the parents though stated that Rs. 1,5O,OOO/- cash, gold and other articles were given at the time of marriage, but it was not pursuant to any

¶44

KS,J &^SKJ Crl.A.No.l049^{of 2016}

¶45

¶46

demancl^{made by the accused'for which reason' the} offence^{underSection3 and 4 of DP Act are not made} out.

¶47

The^{version given bY PW10 is that accused No' 1 was} having^{illicit relationshipwith accusedNo'2 and when} the deceased^{informed himabout theillicit} relationship,^{the accused starteddemandof dowry'} which is totally^{contra-ryto the prosecutioncase'}

¶48

Since^{there was no harassment by the accusedbefore} deathofthedeceased,thequestionofconviction under^{Section 304-B does not arise'}

¶49

Learned^{counsel apPeanngon behalfof the de-facto} complainant/appellant^{would submitthat once it was} pror",ed that^{the death was within 7 years of marriage} and there^{was demandfor additionaldowry' the} presumption^{under Section 113-8 of evidence Act} arises.^{The burdenshifts on to the accusedto prove}

¶50

KS,J & SK,J CrLLNol049 of 2016

¶51

¶52

that they were not responsible for the suicide of the deceased.

¶53

The presumption under Section 113-B of the evidence Act would arise only in the event of the prosecution laying foundation regarding the alleged demand for dowry and the consequent harassment to fullill such demand. Unless such foundation is laid, the question of invoking presumption under Section 1 l3-B of the Evidence Act and shifting the burden on to the accused, does not arise.

¶54

In cases of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Court in Ravi Shqrrna a. State (Goaernment of NCT of Delhi) and dnothe/, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view cal be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

¶55

t 120221^{8 supremeCounCases 536}

¶56

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l049 of 2016

¶57

¶58

In Ghureg Lal a. State of Uttar Pradesn'L the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows

¶59

"7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and otler appellate Courts should follou-t the uell-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or otheruise dbturb the trial court's acquittal:

¶60

1- The appellate courT mag onlg ouerntle or otheru.ise dbturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so-

¶61

A number of instances aise in uhich tlp appellate court uould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the tial court's deci.sion. "Very substantiol and compelling reasons" exi.st uhen: i) The tial court's conclusion uith regard to tlLe facts^{is palpablgwrong:}

¶62

ii) Tlre tial court's decision uas based on an erroneous uieut of laut; iii) Tle tial court's judgment is likelg to result in ograue miscarriage of justice";

¶63

iu) Tlte entire approach of the trial rcurt in dealing uith tte euidenrn was patently illegal; u) Tle tial court's judgment u)as manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

¶64

ui) The trial court has iqnored the euiden.ce or misread the moterial euidence or has ignored material documents like dging declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uiil lhis lisl is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue.

¶65

The appellate court must alwags giue proper uteight ond consideration o the findings of ttle tiat court.

¶66

'12008;^{l0 Sup."-eCounCases450}

¶67

KS,J & SK,J Crl.LNo.l049^{of 2016}

¶68

¶69

I I

¶70

If tuto reosonable^{uieu)scan be reached-one} that leads to acquittal, tle^{other to conuiction} -the High Courts/ appellate courts must^{rule in} fauour^{of tLte} accused."

¶71

To prove the case under^{Section 304-8 of IPC, it has} to be proved that soon before^{death,there was demand for} dowry or additional dowry and^{to fulfill such demand, the} accused have acted cruelly.^{The said ingredientsof Section} 304-8 of IPC are^missing.

¶72

The reasons^given by^{the learnedSessionsJudge are} based on record and needs^{no interference.}

¶73

\ 12. Learned counsel appearing^{for the appellant Iinally} argued that the other^{view regarding the accused harassing} the deceased for additional^{dowryif possible,the appeal has} to be allowed and acquittal^{has to be reversed.}

¶74

It is well settled^law that^{even if two views are possible,} if the view taken by the Court^{is plausibleand based on} record, only for the^{reason of any other view whichis} possible, the same cannot^{be consideredand the view which} is favourable to the accused^{has to be followed by the Court'}

¶75

KS,J & SK,J Crl.A.No.l049 oJ 20l6

¶76

¶77

We do not see any compelling circumstances^{in the} case to reverse the well reasoned Judgment^{of acquittal} passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶78

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is^dismissedby conlirming the^{judgmentpassed} on^{05.01.2016in SC No.31} of 2014, by the VII Additional District and^{Sessions Judge,} Bodhan.

¶79

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶80

closed.

¶81

Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ON OFFICER

\ To,

1 The Vll Additional District^{and Sessions Judge,Bodhan} 2 The Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class, Bichukunda} The Station House^{Officer,lukkalPolice Station Nizamabad} 4 fwo CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad IOUTI

¶86

Ohe CC to Sri D^{bhaskar Reddy.Advocate} [OPUC] b. One CC to Sri T Srujan^{Kumar,Advocate} [OPUC] - .- 7 One CC to Sri B. Paramesewara^{Rao, Advocate} [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies

VH/gh

HIGH GOURT

DATED: 1911112024

1 y1E li I'lr ;
(
e (
,.) 1 I rEB 2025
-f.
..7
\a:l Ltr 3i'ATC AiC

¶92

JUDGMENT

¶93