Appeal against acquittal in dowry death case. High Court held prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Section 304-B IPC due to delayed FIR, hostile witnesses, and lack of corroborative evidence. Appeal dismissed.
Criminal Appeal against acquittal dismissed; accused acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APP NO: 1546 OF 2017
Crl. Appeal Under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C. against ftheJudgment in S.C. No. 188 of 2015 dated 10-03-2016 on the file of the Court btttre tt Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.
Between:
The State of Telangana, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
...APPELLANfl Complai nant
AND
'1. Sakinala Mahesh, S/o. Shankaraiah, 24 years.
(All are Mala by Caste and RUo. Peddampalli, H/o. Peddampalfi, H/o. Regonda ...RESPoNDrrurSl Village. ) Accused
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 3037 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave to present an appeal againrst the order of acquittal S.C.No.18812015 on the file of ll Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.
Counset for the Appellant: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO
The Court delivered the following Judgment ;
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL Appeal No.1546 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgrrent passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal ('Session:; Judge' for brevity) in S.C.No.188 of 2015 dated 10.03.2016 whereunder the respondents-accused Nos.l to 3 were acquitted for the offences runishable under Section 498-4, 304-8 of the Indian Penal Code ('[])C' for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of, Dowry Prohibiticn Act, l96l ('DP' Act for brevity).
2.1. Thr: case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2015, at2l.00 hours the complainant/PW. t/Agaboina Saraiah lodged a complaint stating that Ire has tvro daughters aged 20 years and 17 years respectively. The complainant is workirrg as a Constable in Regonda Police Station. At that time ris elder daughter by name Sagarika i.e., deceased victim used to attend college at Parkal. During the course of her college education, accus$ |Io.1 used to follow her in the name of love and finally married 1\ her on,)3.02.2013. The couple lived amicably for some time. Thereafter, accused No.l and his parents started harassing the victim
2
alleging that she did not bring dowry and that she shall be allowed to stay at home only if she brings dowry. victim informed about this harassment to the comprainant and his wife. Accused Nos. r to 3 also harassed the victim by pointing at her for beronging to S.T. community.
2.2 It is alreged that accused No.l has threatened victirn of doing from her parents by nd others rvent to Peddampalli and gave Rs.r,00,000/- and requested the aqcused to look after the deceased and they lived weil for sometime and [hereafter, the deceased/victim has made phone cails to the complainant and his wife apd expressed apprehension that the accused Nos. r to 3 wourd kiil her for want of additional dowry. The comprainant asked victirn to come back to the house but she refused stating that she has brought dishonor to the famiry by going away and marrl,ing Accused No.l. On 14.02.2,015 at 05.00 p.m. when the complainant was on duty, a person by Sambaiah made phone call and informed that victim co mmitted suicide by hanging.
3
2.3. On receiving the information, the complainant took his wife, )/oungerclaughter and his sister-in-law and went to Peddampalli. When the complainant and his relatives reached Peddampalli, they saw the dead body of victim on a cot in the house of the accused. Hence, a cornplainl is lodged for necessary action against Accused Nos.l to 3 for harassing the deceased for additional dowry which resulted in her suicide
4
i^<br>
accused No- r and handed over Rs. r,00,000/-. In spite of the same, without taking into consideration of the above said evidence of the PWl, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offences under Section 4ggA of IPC.
4.1. He further submitted that on behalf of used, the defence counsel praced the exhibit Dr suicide note. However, the sarne is only a Xerox copy that cannot be looked into. Hence the irnpugned judgment passed by the Iearned II Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is riable to be set aside and the accused Nos. r to 3 are riable for punishment for Offences under Sections 4'B-A,304-B Ipc and Sections 3,4 and,6(2) otD.p. Act.
5
accordinll to the allegations made in the complaint by the Pwl who is none othlr than the father of the deceased victim the alleged incident was takert place on 14.02.2015. Learned counsel vehemently contended that even according to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 14.02.20 i5 at 04.00 P.M. However, the FIR has been sent to the Court on 16.02.2015 with a substantial delay of 2 days without explaining any reasons and the inquest rvas conducted on 15.02.2015 at Government Hospital, Parkal and the same was fatal to the case of the prosecution
the parents and the relationship between the deceased victim and her i: Darentsbroke down after the alleged incident. Pw1, who is working as
6
-f
a constable lodged the compraint by making false aregations about the alleged harassment of dowry. At no point of time neither the deceased nor her parents rodged any compraint about the harasgment of dowry either against accused No.l or his parents: In the 4bsence of any allegations under section 49g-A of lpc, the ingredients for the offence under section 304-8 of Ipc does not attract.The learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused Nos. r to 3 for the offenceE under section \ct. fhus, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the leamed Sessions Judge.
7 Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the judgment passed by the le{med Sessions Judge, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the marriafe of accused No.l and the deceased was soremnized on 03.02.2013.Even according to the prosecution, their marriage is a love marriage. The judgment further reveals that the incident was occurred on l4.OZ.ZOl5 at 04.00 PM in the evening and the crime was registered on the vdry same day. The inquest was conducted on 15.02 .2015 at Governmdnt Hospital, Parkal. However, the F.I.R was not handed over to the conperned court tt
and the r;aid F.I.R has been sent to the Court on 16.02.2015 with an inordinat,: delay of 2 days.
8
(-<br>
in his deposition. The rearned Sessions Judge rightry disbelieved the version of the pWl
9' Learned Sessions Judge whire evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution rigfitry came to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence against rhe accused Nos. r to 3 and in discharging t{reir burden in proving the case beyond the reasonable doubt. The record further reveals that at no point of time neither the deceased victirn nor the pwl and Pw2 made any complaint against accused aboqt the aileged demand of dowry.
10' It is very much rerevant to mention that to attractthe ingredients for the offences under Section 304_8, the prosecution hAs to establish the offence under section 49g-A. In the present case, ttle prosecution failed to prove the offence under section 4gg-Aagainst thq respondents. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rigtrtry come to conclusion that the offences revered against the accused ]r[os.1 to 3 for the offence under section 3048 of Ipc does not attract.
9
I 1. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. stute (Government of NCT of Dethi) and unother', held. that while dealing rvith an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Couft's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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.
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other ap,tellate Courts should Jbllow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal;
l. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial qnd compelling rerusons" -for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantiol and compelling reasons',
t-1ZOzZ18 SuJrreme Court Cases 536 '(2008) l0 Srrpreme Court Cas:s 45 -rr ss-
10
to discard the rriar court's decision- "very substantiar and compelling reasons', exist when:
i)'rhe triur court's concrusion with regard to thefarcts is palpably wrone;
ii)'the trial court,s dcci.sion wu,s based o.n an erroneous view of law
iii) The trial court,s judgment is likety to result tn ,,grave '- mi.scarriage of iustice',,.
iv) The entire approach qf the trial court in dealing with -' "o '," the evidence was patently illegal,.
v) The trial court,s judgment was, manifestly uniust snd unrea.sonahle.-
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or ntis,ead the marcrial evidence or has ignored material d"r;*;;;;;;;,- '"" "^ dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, ,r, .
'vii) Thts list is i,tcnded to be ilrustrattve, not exhaustivet,
3' If two reasonabre views can be reached one that reads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courrrtrpp,"itit, courts must rule infavour o.f the accused.,,
13' Taking into consideration the facts and circumstancgs of the case and also for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the reamed sessions Judge rightly acquitted the
respondent*Qccused Nos. r to 3 for the offences under Secfions 4gg_A,
i1
304-8 IPC ancr se*ions 3,4 and 6(2) ofD.p Act. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered since they are based on record rnd reasonarrre. only on trre basis of conrbssion, con'iction cannot tre rccorcred as rightry herd by the Sessions Judge. Hence, there are no 1;rounds to interfere with the werr reasoned Judgment of the learned liessions Judge.
Miscellaneous apprications, pendi,g if any, sha[ stand crosed. Sd/- V.KAVITHA REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPYII
CTION OFFTCER
To
1+
d
d
HIGH COUIIT
DATED:1311112025
JUDGN,IEN't
CRL.APPE,\L No.1546 of 2017
t
S IA
,
?-
()() 2 r JAN 2[2t
DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL
q,,r{e
Kw
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should reverse the acquittal of accused persons charged with dowry death and cruelty.
Whether the prosecution evidence regarding dowry harassment and suicide was credible and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the delay in turning over the FIR and conflicting testimonies justified acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)Explained¶54
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶55
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The State of Telangana
Sakinala Mahesh
Sakinala Bhadramma
Sakinata Shankaraiah
J. SREENIVAS RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
