The State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Vs Mohd… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

The State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Vs Mohd… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved a demand for additional dowry made in proximity to the death of the deceased and harassment pursuant to such demand, so as to attract Section 304-B IPC. +2 more

Court's answer

In the absence of any acceptable and admissible evidence placed on record by the prosecution to show any demand for additional dowry made in proximity with the death of the deceased, and harassment pursuant to such demand, the question of attracting the ingredients under Section 304 of IPC does not arise.

Ratio / Principle

Vague and omnibus allegations that the deceased was harassed cannot be made the basis to convict the accused for the offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.

Key takeaways

The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on record.ratio¶59
There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge; accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Sections 378(3) & (1) CrPC (by the appellant represented by the Public Prosecutor) against the acquittal dated 30.05.2011 in SC.No.391 of 2010 (Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy) of the five accused for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, arising out of the death of the deceased (married to Accused No.1 on 11.02.2010) by Endosulphan poisoning on 11.08.2010, prosecuted as a dowry death/cruelty case (Crime No.147 of 2010, Zaheerabad Town P.S.). Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) with no acceptable and admissible evidence of a demand for additional dowry in proximity to the death and of harassment pursuant thereto, the question of attracting the ingredients under Section 304 IPC does not arise; (ii) vague and omnibus allegations of harassment cannot be the basis to convict for cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC; (iii) guided by the cited Supreme Court authorities on appeals against acquittal (presumption of innocence, need for 'very substantial and compelling reasons', and the rule that where two views are possible the view favouring the accused must prevail), there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

132511

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL AP P EAL NO:48 0 0F 2012

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(3) & (.1) of Cr p.C., against the Judgment dated 30.05.20'r 1 passed in sc.No.391 of 2o1o on the fire of the court of the Judge, Family court-cum-Additional District and sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy

Between:

A P rep , bv the Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra pradesh, Iffi"::150"

AND

...AppellanUPetitioner

I Mohd Adbdul Ravees. S/o Mohd. Abdul Waheed, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No '15-'17, SBH Colohy, ZaheerrOra-, nA.Jri. ii:t) "' "

2 Mohd 15-17, Abdul Khadeer. SBH Cotony, Zaheeranjo, S/o Mohd. Abdul Waheed, Occ: Business, Rio. H.Nov.orr, iI_5i"' "

Mohd Ab_dul Saleem, S/o Mohd Abdul Waheed, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No 15-17, SBH Cotony, ZaheeraOaa. MeJaf<'1A;;-'

4 Mohd Abdul Raheem, S/o. Mohd Azeez Ahmed, Occ:Business, R/o. Gadi Mahalla, Zaheerabad, Medak(A-S j

Smt. Kubera Beoum Wlq [Vo!d Azeezuddin, Occ:Business, R/o. Gadi Mahalla, Zaheeriad, rvreoai lA_di-"

...Accused/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.D Sangeetha Reddy

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

THE }IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE^K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO. 4AO OF 20L2}

JUDGMENT:

This C::irninal Appeal is frled^{questiorrirrg the} acquittal of the respondents/accused^{Nos- 1 t'l 6 vide} Jndgmenr, dzLt.ed 3O.O5.2O).1,^{passed inS-C.No. l91of} 2O1rO, on thr: file of the Family^{Court-cum-Adclitional} District and^lSessions Judge,^{Medak, at Sangaredrly,.(for} short, 'tri;al CourtJ for the^{offences under Sections 3O4-B} and 498-r\ of Indian^{Penal Code,186O(for short, II:'C).}

The citse of the Prosecution 1S 1-hr,rt, on 11.O8.2O1O, at about 23.OO^{hours, Md. As,lam,the} defacto clom.plairrant-Pw. 1, who is^{the brother of the} deceased-Taj r.rwer Begum, lodged^{acomplaint before} Zalteerab ad Town Police Station stating^{t.hr'rt, the} deceased was rnarried to accused^{No.1 on 11.Orl>.2OlO,} and at the time of marriage,^{they gave Rs.6I),OOO/-} cash, 4 tulas gold, and house hold^{articles.Howt,:ver, all} the accursed started trarassing the deceased^ph'gsically and mer.Ltally for want of additional dowry, rlnd on

Z

coming to know about the harassment, pW. 1 along with his relatives went to the house of the accused and requested them not to harass the deceased, and further gave 5 tulas of gold chain to accused No.l. But, not satislied with the gold chain, the accused continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry. Four days prior to the complaint, the deceased was beaten by the accused and driven out of the house. On 11.Og.2O10, PW. 1, along with some relatives, went to the in_laws, place of the deceased and left the deceased there, convinced with the assrlrance given by the elders that they will look after the deceased well. On the very sarne day, PW. 1 came to know that the deceased consurned poison and was admitted in the Government hospital, Za}rcerabad. Later, she died in the'hospital.

3 On the basis of the said cornplaint, ASI of police, Zalrcerabad Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.147 of 2OlO. During the course of investigation, the police went to the hospital and conducted inquest and thereafter, the body was sent for Post Mortem Examination. As per the FSL report

3

and PMF) report, deceas6d^{died asa result ol Neuro} Respiratory l?aralysis^{due to Endosulphan,wtrich is an} insecticicle lroison.^{On thebasis} -of^{thestatements} narrated bl, the^{relatives of thedeceaseC,the} Investigating Offrcer filed^a Charge Sheet under Sections 3O4-B and 498-4^{of IPC.}

During t.he course of trial,^{learned Sessionr';Judge} examinerl P\Vs.l to^{15, out of whom,PWs.l to 1O are} the relatives of the^{deceasedald rnarked Exs.P1 to 15'}

Lea.rne<l Sessions Judge,^{having exarnirled the} evidence placed on record,^{acquitted the accl'rsedon} the follovring^grotr.nds:

A. Though it was admitted^{that at the'iirne of} marrialle, list of articles were^{given by bot.h sides} to cne alother, and details^{written in a book,the} saicl book was not handed^{over to the policr,:.}

B. Not pr:ducing the said book^{createssttspicion} regzrrdin.g any dowr5r being^given.

PW.1

C. In the cornplaint made to the poli,:e adnr.ittr:d that he did not narrate to tht:: police regzrrdin.g harassrnent or regardjrni,l the

4

deceased informing him about the harassment over the cell phone. It was further adrnitted that the version given during the trial, that the deceased went to the house of . pW. 1 one month prior to her death, was also an improvement.

D. Though it is stated that 5 trllas of gold chain was given to accused No. 1, the prosecution failed to produce any receipt or details of the place from where the gold was purchased. pWs.4 and 5, who were exarnined by the prosecution, were independent witnesses, and have turned hostile to the prosecution case.

E. Though the statements of pWs.S and 6 were recorded, the date is not mentioned in the staternents recorded under Section 161 Cr.p.C., nor has the investigation officer given the details of the date and place of the examination. No evidence is placed on record to substantiate that there was any kind of panchayat that was held. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be believed that Rs.65,OOO/- cash and 4 tulas of gold were given at the tirne of marriage.

F. The prosecution failed to prove that there was any kind of harassment soon before the death of the deceased, as such, Section 3O4-B of IpC is not attracted. Section 49a-A of IpC is also not

5

attrilcted since a bald^{allegation was made by the} witr.esses regarding the^harassment.

In cases of acquittal,^{the Hon'lale Supre:mr':Court} in Raui Shartna u.^{Stcrte (Gouerrttrrent ofNCT of} Dethi) and dnotherr,^{held that, while dealing ''vith an} appeal against acqr.rittal,^{the appellateCourt has to} consider wh:ther the triat^{Court's wiew can tre termed} as a poss;iblt: one,^{particularlywhenevidenceorr record} has been analyzed. The^{reason isthal. anordbr of} acquittal ad,ls up to the^{presurnptionofinnocence in} favour of the' accused. Thus,^{the appellate Courl'has to} be relatively slow in reversing^{the order of the trial} court rer,dering acquittal.

In tihu.reg Lat tt. State^{of .Uttar Pradeshz,t}re} Hon'ble Sucreme Court, after^{referringtoseveral} Judgments regarding^{the settled principlesof law and} the powe:rs rrl appellate^{Court in reversing ttr'e r:)rder of} acqrrittal, held at^{paraTO as follows:}

"7O. In the ligltt of the aboue, the High Court^and

t (2022) A Supreme Court Cases 536

, (2008) 10 Suprerne Court Cases 450

6

other appellate Courts^should follow^{the well-settled} pinciplei crystalli-z,ed bg^{number of Judgments if it} 1" goirrg to ouerntle^{or otherwise disturb the tial} court's acquittal:

1 . The appellate court^{mag only ouerntleor} otheruise disturb the tial^{court's acquittalif it has} "uery substantial and^{compelling reasons"} for^doing so. A number of instances aise in uhich the appellate court tttould^{haue 'uery substantialand} cimpelling reasons'^{todiscordthe trtal court's} d.ecision. 'Very substantial^{and compelling reasorts"} exist when:

i) The tial court's^{conclusionruith regardto the} facts '^{is palpablg urong:} ii) ih"- taot court's^{decision u-tas basedon an} erroneous uieu.t^{of latu;}

iii)The trial court's^{judgmentis likelgto result in} "graue miscarriage^{of justice';}

iu)The entiie approach^{ofthe tialcourt in} dealing utith the euidence^{uas patentlg illegal;} u) The tial court's^{judgmentutas manifestly} unj ust and unreasonable ;

ui)The tial court has^{ignored the euidence or} .rnisread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial docurnents^{like dying declarations/ report of} the balli.sttc exPert,^etc.

uii) fi* tist is intended^{to be illustratiue, not} exhaustiue.

The appellate court^{must alutagis giue proper} Lueight and ion sideration^{o thafindings of the tial} court.^'

If tu.to reasonable^{uieu)s can be reached-one} that leids to acquittal,^{the other to conuiction} -the High Courts/ appetlate^{courtsmust rule in} fauour^of the accused.^"

The finding of the^{learnedSessions Judge is based} on record. In the^{absence ofany, acceptableand} adrnissible evidence^{placed on record bythe}

7

prosecution to^{show that there was any derna-nr:lfor} additional^{clow.r'gwhich was made in proximitSr w'ith the} death of the^{d:ceased, and pursuanttp such dernand} there was^{harassment, the questionof attracting the} un cler Section^{304 of IPC does no1: ilrise'} ingredients Vague ald onrnibus allegations^{were rnade thal- the} deceased^{r''"'as harassed. Such vague allegations cannot} be made b:rsis^{lo convict the accused for the ofI'err'ce of} cruelty,^{ptrnishable under Section498-AofIPC' As} such, there^{ilre nogroundstointerferewiLtLr the} Iindings of the^{learnedSessions Judge'}

9 Accordinlgly,^{this Criminal Appeal is dismisse'1'}

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,ifan1', shall}

stand clos<:d.

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI (orNr^REGISTRAR: ,\ \ ,TRUE COPY// 0 SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judge,^I:ami !'^{Court-cum-AdditionalDistrictand Sessions} 'Judge' Medak at Sa nga^ReddY

2.fwoCCsto'heFubllcProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateof-Ieianganaat Hyderabad (3UTt

One CC to^tvls. D^{Slangeetha Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

Two CD Cop ies

ADK/DL W

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1 010212025

o F TE L4

c,
n
, .9 >
*<br>qs
\
tr '._'.- ,-;:,
'-;/ Jvg,1fl l-;'-'I'
--i-__:-/

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.480 of^201\2.

DISMISSING THE CRLA

(
\i.
rq