Daggula Suresh , Suresh, Rr.Dt., Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

Daggula Suresh , Suresh, Rr.Dt., Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal partly allowed: conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC sustained; bail bonds of the appellant/accused cancelled, having already undergone three years of rigorous imprisonment for the Section 498-A offence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, resting solely on the statements/dying declarations recorded by the Police (Ex.P17) and by the Magistrate, is sustainable in view of the delay of nearly 14 hours in informing the Police, the presence of the deceased's mother (PW6) with the deceased throughout, and the variations between the two statements suggesting tutoring. +2 more

Court's answer

The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside: the statements made by the deceased to the Police and to the Magistrate are not only contradictory but are the result of tutoring by the mother of the deceased, which is apparent from the facts of the case.

Ratio / Principle

Though a dying declaration can form the sole basis for convicting the accused, the surrounding circumstances must also be taken into consideration by the Court to rule out the possibility of tutoring; here the prosecution did not explain the delay in informing the Police, who were informed only after the mother (PW6) arrived.

Key takeaways

The allegation regarding the appellant having a relationship with Venkatamma is consistent and amounts to cruelty; accordingly, the conviction and punishment under Section 498-A IPC are sustained.ratio¶62
Since the appellant has already undergone three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the bail bonds against him shall stand cancelled.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Surender and J. Anil Kumar, JJ.; judgment per K. Surender, J.), Criminal Appeal No.796 of 2017, decided 07-01-2025 — Partly allowed. Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 03-07-2017 in S.C.No.301 of 2014 (XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District), whereby the husband-appellant was convicted under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of his wife, who was burnt after kerosene was poured on her on 20-02-2013 at Madhapur. The conviction under Section 302 IPC rested solely on the deceased's statement to the Police (Ex.P17, recorded next day at about 12:30 PM by PW14) and her dying declaration before the Magistrate (PW12); PWs.1 to 4, the only persons named as present at the incident, turned hostile; the Police were informed only the next day, with an unexplained delay of nearly 14 hours and only after the deceased's mother (PW6), who stayed with her till her last breath, arrived; and the two statements materially varied (illegal contacts with several women and dowry demands versus only Venkatamma), indicating tutoring by the mother — conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. The consistent allegation of the appellant's relationship with Venkatamma was held to amount to cruelty — conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC sustained; since the appellant had already undergone three years of rigorous imprisonment for that offence, his bail bonds were ordered cancelled. The Court applied the caution on dying declarations enunciated in Irfan alias Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060 (relied on by defence counsel): a dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction, but surrounding circumstances must exclude tutoring, prompting and fabrication, with medical opinion on fitness where relevant.

[³⁴¹⁹ ]

ttOIF , T_he AppellanU Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Courtdated 05-01-2023 in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crt.A.No.796 of 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 796 of 2017

Appeal under Section 374(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 03-07-2017 passed in S.c.No.301 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Xlll Additionat District and sessions Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

?"SSyl,^{Suresh @ Suresh,S/o. Late D.Venkataiah, Age:32 years, Occ:G4S} S-ecurity Guard, R/o. 14-1-20913051A, ll Floor, Parvathnagar, (ukatpally, Native of Antharam Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Parvi, Ranga ReOOy Oistriit (Presenily lodged in Charlapalli Central Prison, Hyderabad/Rang-a Reddy)

...AppellanUAccused

AND

T.he State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

... Respondents/Defacto Complai nant

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

a

THE HOIIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURET{DER A}{D THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF 2OI7

JUDGMENT:^(p.'r l7on'ltIt' Sri ./trsttct' K.Sut endet )

t. This app,:21 is filed aggrieved by the judgment clated 03.O7.2017 in :1.C.No.30 I o1 20 l-1, passed bv the tearnecl Xlll Additional Distrrcr and Sessions J udge-cum-Xlli /\ctclttlonal Metropolitan S essions ,J udge, C-r,berabacl ar 1..1J. Naghr, Ranga Redcly l)rstrict. convicting the appellant/,acc userl lbrthe ollences under Sectrons 498-t\ ancl 302 ol [l,C anrl sentencing to undergo ltle rmprisonment lbr the oltence under Section 302 ol lPC.

). Hearcl Mr. P. Vamsl-reeclhar Reddy, learned counsel lbr the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, [earne<[ Additronerl Public Prosecuti)r appearrng on behall of respondenr State.

The deceased is the u,ile o1 appellant.^'lhe case agarnsr the appeliant s thar on 20.O2.2O I3 at 09:00 l).M., rhe erppellant went^.o the house in an angrv moocl anrl trskecl the cieceased to h;rve corclial relatlon rvith neight.ior nameh, Venkatamma, \r.ith \'hom, he u,as havir-rg illici I intrmacr,.

r3l'

There \rra s quarrel when the deceased^refused to^the suggestion macle bv the appellant. Then the appellant^got nild zrnd pourerl kerosene on her and set her on fire.^Flames urere put otf bv the appeliant by pouring water on^{her and} immediatel', she rvas taken to Gandhi hospital^{for treatment.} Tl-re Madh;rpur Police u,as inlbrmed on the^{next dav about the} deceaserl receiving burn iniuries.^{PW14 who} is^{the Sub-} lnspector ol' Police went to hospital and^recordedher statemenr at around l2:30 P.M. on 2l^{.O2.2O 13. lnthe} statemcnl^glven to PW 14, the deceased stated that^{ori the} previous dar,at 09:00 P.M.. the appellalt went to house^{in an} angrv mrrorl atnrl asked her to behave^{properlv q'ith} Vcrrkalamma. When she relused lbr the same, he took^four litcrs ol l<erosenc.^pourecl on her and set her on^{fire u'ith} match strcl(. She sustatned heaw flames on the^clothesand she came otrt running. The appellant then^{pouredwater s'ith} .l p()1.^'l'11(' ou,ncr Laxmi who was examined as^{PWI u'ent} thcre an(l changed her clothes. Then, Pastor^namelv Veerasrvam r'/ PW4 and his wife Koteswaramma / PW3 shiftecl thc rleccascd to^(iandhi hospital for treatment.^{Prlor lo the} mitrnage.^t he appellant ',va s having illegal contacts^rvith Venk:rtatnma- Since the time ol marriage, the appellant^rvas

Y

v

harassing the rleceased mentallv ancl phvsicallv clemanciing ercldirional do'"r,rry- Hou,ever, the appeliant conrrnuecl t0 malntaln iilegal contact wirh Venkatamma who lvas havins three claughters. The appellant rvas also havrng ille.gal contacts rvrth some other u,omen. When thr cleceasecl questioned him, she u.as beaten up incliscrimrrLarrelv. l.he appellant coulci not avoid other illegal contacrs, lor whlch reason, he pourr:d kerosene on her and lit lire o. I rer rvith a. intention to kill lter.

:+- Basing on the slatemenr ol vtctim, pW 14 registerecl iL case in Crime N o. 1'23 ol' 20 I 13 argainst the appeilant under Sections 49tl-A, 307 o1' IpC :rncl Secrior-rs 3 and 4 ol IJ.l,. r\c1 and took up inve stigal ion.

On the r.eqr-risition glven bv the Sub tnspector, Madhapur to the .jurisclicrion a[ Magrstrate/ pW I2, slrr: wenr to the hospital and :ecorded Dving f)er:laration at 02: l5 [).M. on 21.03.2013. In hr:r statement ro the Magistrate, the cteceased stated that the appellant clevelopecl illicrt conlzrcr wlrh Venkatamma u,ho u,as staving besicle the house.^,l'nere rt ere constant q uarrels in between them \r,lth regard to reJationship u,ith Venkarammzr. When the cleceasecl (luesrtone(.t itbout the relationship, appellant threatenecl l. leave the housr:.tct srar.,

.1

u,ith Vcnkatamma. Thcn. the appellant poured kerosene on hcr ancl lrl her on {ire. When the Magistrate questiorred, rvhether she can sav anvthing about Venkatamma, the rlecease<l answ,ered that Venkatamma was alreadv marned and pnor 1o their marriage. appellant fell in love with her and contrnuerl to have illegal relationship with her. For the said reason. tl.rc rluarrel tool< placc.

(). Learne<l Sessions .J udge on the basrs of Dving I)eclaratron. convrcted the appellant, though the independent \vrtnesses r.c.. I)Ws. I to 4 turned hostile to the proseculron CA SO

I-carned counsel appearing fbr appellant would submlt that the rncrdent of burning has taken place at 09:00 P.M. on 20.O'2.'2O1.1 itself. hou,ever. no complaint was filed on the same rlar,. On tl-re ncxt da,, the mother/PW6 rvent and met thc deceaserl at II:OO A.M. and therealter. both the Police an(l M.rglstrate recor(led their statements. The statement s grven lx, the clecease(i rvas a result of tutorlng bv PW6. [r-r fact. the :rplrellant w:rs^'nr the nerghboring house, when the rncident harl laken place- [iven according to PWs. I to 4. thc rleceaserl \:as on fire ancl seerng that. the appellant \'cnt there. extnrqulshed thc tire:rnr{ took her to the hospital.

7

t1

tt. Learnecl^c ounsel^{reltecl on the ju(iementol[-ion'ble} Supreme Court^{in lrfan alias Naka u'Sto:te ofUttar}

Pradesht, u'her:rn,^{it is helcl as lollou's:}

"7'lre .lLrnstic tleont reqorcliq tlrc^{crcceptctbrLitrlol} tr cltlitq cleclarat.ton^{t-s lhctt suclt cle<:lorctttort rs trrrttlt' trt} ,.,rri.nritl1, rttlen^the 1;art.t1^{is (1t tlrc pouiol deQtlt ot(l} uhen eue't1^{hope olthis uorkl Is qotP' tutrerreuerrl} tnotiue to -lalsehood"^{rs silenced. artcl tlp rl(lrl I"i rttrluct'tl} Ltrl the n'c. st^{pouterJul cottsrcleratlottto sl)eak otrltl tltt'} ,,',.71r. 1'l)ntitltstanditlg^{the sottte' (lreQt c(tutiot'tttttsl l)?} exerciseci ut^{considennq tle lueqt lo [tt' tltut'rr ttt tlrts} species ol eutde:nce^{on occotttttol llve-Ylstetlceol ttL(tttll} <'rrcnrn sl'artces tuhich^{mall a[lect tlPtr tr'1llt' 'l'lt'.} -srtLraliorr^{intLtluch arnattt-s ott llte tlecttltlptl ts :'tt} solemrr at'c)^{serene, is the reasorrot IQLUto occepltl('} ueracittl ri' hts^{staternentlti's} /br^{thi-s re(ts()tt' llte} t't,qlliret e'fis^{ttl' oatlt turl('ro-ss P(tttlitt( tt)ttttt (} rlrspense<, ruitli.^{Sirrcr: the rrccuseclltrt's rtt.r l''oIt'etol} r'ro-s-s-^e-r, rmi^{rtcttiort. tlle (ouns Irlslst lll(lt tltt'tltlrtttl} r.lecLctrqtir.trt^{shottlcl be olstrt:lta t(tnte(l's to Ll's/)Ir?/ti11} <tnLlicleru:,' ol'^{thec-ourLttt it's tnttltluh'esstottl} correcltte::s.^{'l-|rc courl, hotuerpr,slrctulclctLtucttl's l,lt' cttt} tltrartl to:;ee tllat^{the stateiletol llrc de<'easedrtrts rtttt} ,./., ,, ,.'.r,^'t ol tzither^{tut.oinqot' proilpnrlq or o Droducl'ol} Una(lttt(tl^t, 'tl. '

1l is equalllJ uell^{settledtLrrcl tteetlsttt)} testatertetlt al our^{hattds that cltliwrleclarattttrr<'rtrt} lontl^tLe '-o1e^basis lbr^{conui<:tiort'Ilttt Qt tlTe ;(lttte ttttv} rlue cttre and^{caution must be exe'rcisec'Lirt <':trtsulenrrq} rueiqht tr, be^{git.tett to dyinq decloratron irt'tstrtac/t rt's} tlere <'oultl be^{antl ttutnber ol ctrcu LstotLcestulrr<'lt ttttttl} ttIlect tht' tn1th.^{;l'his Court ut trlore thatt ore tlet:tstort} lL;Les^{('auttotte(lthc.t thecoLttl.s lt\Ue ultucttlsl() l)? otI} tytarcl to see tltc.t^{tlrc d.tfuq cleclarattorrLU,r.; ttot lllt'} restLLt ol eitlrcr tutoing^{or pronptttLq ot uoruxlttctrtl} trttctclitctl r,rtt. ,ll^{i.s tlte cluttl of tlte courts to lD'd tltat tlu'} rle<-eoset.'^{tr.,a.s irr (1} tit^{stlte olnirrd to tttoke rlpLlL1rrtt1} rlec'lartut^{'trr. lrr order Io satls/U nsell tlrut tlte t1<'r'er'Lst'tl}

' 2023^{SCCOnLrne;C 1060}

()

r<br>

tt,(1s Dl a lit^{rnentalcondition} to make the dtlinq rleclorattott the courts haue to look for the medical oPntrott.

()Learnecl counsel alternativelv submits that the tu.o rlaughtcrs of the deceasecl are staving with the appellant and turther the incident happened after a heated exchangc of rvords in between the appellant and deceased and the offence mav iall under Section 3O4 - II of IPC.

I O. The rncrdent happened at 09:OO P.M. and according to the witnesses. the cleceased u,as immediatelv shitted to Gandhi hospital. At the trme ot lornipg, neither any com;laint rvas file<l nor the statement ol-deceased was recorded. The case was a Medico-lcgal case. [)octor who hrst attended the deceased was not examined. When the deceased was undergorng treatment. the mother of deceased/PW6 u.ent there anrl met the deceased at I l:O0 A.M. In her cross examination. PW6 stated that she was with the deceased, u,hen the Sub-lnspeclor lvas recording her statement and u,as also present while deceased u,as undergoing treatment till deceased's last breath.

I l. No reason is grven ;rs to r.r'hv the Police rvere not informerl till the ncxt dar..^'l'l-rere is a clelav of nearlv l4 hours fretore the Police arnved an<l recorded the statement /Ex.P17.

w ,' /' 'a.,

'lhe stzrtement tl the Magrstrate was re<:orde<l ar 0l: I 5 I'. M , Admittedh,, the motlter/ PW6 was u,ith t hr tleceaserl throlrghor-rt, ac:'orcling to her statement in cross exermlr)auoil.

l'). As alreacv narrated, the version given ir-r 1,,x.I'I7 rvhir:h rs statement plven to rhe l)olice is that the appellant rvzrs lravrng several illegal contacts and alscr^{( ()ltrlrcl} rvith Venkatamma irnrl he u,as also harassing tht, rle< ettse<[ lbr clon,rr,. Hou,ever, the rrersion ol the appellant havrnq⁽ onracls rvith several \vlmen ancl harassing fbr rlort,rt, is onrrssron'rrr the statement rrade belbre the Magrstrate. II is zrcparent tt-rirt the tleceasecl^\vas trving to implicate anct mak<, irllt-gatior s against the,appellant in the statement made to rlre l)ohcc. 'l'herc is itnv irmount ol variation regarding tlre irppellant havir-rg relation rvith several r\romen as stated in tlte stzrrement to the Police rrncl conlining to one Venkatamma rvhcn the statement rl,as given bv the Magistrate. ln the backgrouncl ol there being no complaint to the Police tbr nearlt'^'4 r,t,ars erntl the mother accompanving the deceasecl sinct, nt()rnlnq ()n '21 .O'2.'2O1?t, it appears that mother ha<l tutorecl the <leceaserl ro speak agairrst the appellant. As alreit(iv drscussert. tlte varlatlon in irot I-r the Dving Declarations req:rrclrng the

x

n

appellant havrng relation with several wornen and demanding additional d ovgrv is a result of tutoring.

I 3. PWs. I to 4 who rverc present r.vhen the rncident happenecl stated that the deceasecl \vas on flames and on seerng the deceased. the appellant u,ent there and put olf the Ilames. The onlv evidence is Dving Declaration and there is no other independent evidence as to u.,hat transprred on the date of incident. All the rvitnesses i.c.. PWs. 1 to 4 u,ho tvere named in the complaint and u,hose presence rvas stated have lurned hostile lo the prosecullon^('asc.

Though the Dying Der:laration can fbrm sole l;asrs for convrcting the accused, hou,ever, the surrounding circumstances should also be taken lnto consideration by the Court to rule out the possibilitv of tutoring and the statement made bv deceased being a result ol tutonng. The prosecution has not explained the delav in inlbrming the Police. Onlv after mother/PW6 arrived, thc Police u,ere informed. Thereafter, thc statement made bv the deceased reflects implication of the accused on the ground of having relatronship with several \vomen an<i also demanding dou,n,. The said statements made h1, rleceased cannot be relied on to sustain r:onviction slncc the statement o{ deceased to Police anrl Magtstrate are

9

7

not onh, contradictory but a result ol tutoring bv the mother ol deceased nh ch is apparent liom the lacts ol rhe (.ase.

For the a bresaid reasons, the conviction uncler Sectlon 302 ol' IPC, is herebv set aside. However, the ailegation regarding thc appellant having relatronship u,irtr Venkatamma is consistent. lt amounts r() c_-rueltr,. Accorciinglr', th:. conviction and punishment uncler Secrion :l9tt-A ol lPC is lrerebv sustained.

Itr. Accordinglr.., the criminal appeal is parrh,-:rllowe(1. Since tt're appellant has aireadv undergone three vears ol [?igorous lmpris;onment lbr the oll'ence untler Ser:tror-r 4L)ti A

ol tPC, the bail bonds against him shall stand cancelled.

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JO T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

tde TION OFFICER

To, '1 . The Xlll Additicnal Distrrct and Sessions Judge-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at^{L.B.Nagar,Ranga Reddy} District. (with records, if any)

The lX Metropoli:an [/agistrate, Cyberabad^{at Kukatpally.}

\

The Superintend€rnt, Central^{Prison, Chanchalguda}

The Station Hc use Officer, Madhapur^{Police Station, Ranga Reddy} D istrict.

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [C,UT]

One CC to Mr. P Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

Two CD Copies

kam/gh

s

HIGH COURT

DATED:071011iJ25

JUDGMENT

1
HE ST41 (
(
) >
01 liir-r 2025 (
<br>. ,_ ..,.,1, r \r\ .
.--

CRLA.No.796 of 2017

THE CRIMINAI. APPEAL IS PARTLY AI-LOWED 0gqto

.21