Allowed¶33

Medi Saidulu and 1 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Telangana HC17 Mar 2025CRLA/866/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 498-A IPC; cruelty; dying declaration; illicit intimacy; suspicion; corroboration; hostile witnesses; no dowry demand established; acquittal; bail bonds discharged; S.C.No.402 of 2010; Nalgonda; Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge; CRLA No.866 of 2012; Telangana High Court; K. Surender J.; Medi Saidulu; Medi Anitha; Suvarna (deceased). Relevant to arguments that an uncorroborated dying declaration alleging a suspected extramarital relationship is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; appellants/A1 & A5 acquitted; conviction in S.C.No.402 of 2010 set aside; bail bonds of the appellants discharged. ¶33

Medi Saidulu and 1 Others Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal allowed; appellants/A1 & A5 acquitted; conviction in S.C.No.402 of 2010 set aside; bail bonds of the appellants discharged.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of appellants A1 and A5 under Section 498-A IPC, founded solely on the deceased's dying declaration expressing suspicion of an illicit relationship between A1 and A5, could stand when the prosecution adduced no admissible or corroborative evidence of such a relationship.

¶28

Court's answer

The allegation in the dying declaration, expressing only the deceased's suspicion of a relationship between A1 and A5, cannot form the basis to infer that any harassment was meted out; the prosecution ought to have collected evidence regarding the alleged relationship.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of admissible evidence placed on record by the prosecution showing that the appellants were having an illegal affair - which formed the basis for the conviction - the conviction had to be set aside.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No.866 of 2012 (decided 17-03-2025, Justice K. Surender): Appeal by Accused Nos. 1 and 5 (the husband and his alleged paramour, the co-sister of the deceased) against conviction under Section 498-A IPC by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.402 of 2010. The trial court convicted solely on the strength of the deceased's dying declaration alleging illicit intimacy between A1 and A5, expressly finding no abetment of suicide but holding the physical relation amounted to cruelty; the complainant father and all other witnesses (PWs.2 to 11) had turned hostile, and the police had collected no evidence of the alleged relationship. Held: a dying declaration recording mere suspicion of a relationship cannot, without prosecution evidence on that relationship, ground a finding of harassment or cruelty; no admissible evidence of the alleged affair was placed on record, so the conviction could not stand. Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted; conviction set aside; bail bonds discharged.

¶1

BAIL SLtp : Th e Petitioner/ Accused was order of the Hio oJ,.iX" No.866 of 20i2" h c o u rr o a teo z-ato arz 0!?,:',8:ii1,J:, h l?f%T :1 ! B., ?" I l,

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJREABIfE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

[^32s1 ]

¶4

IUONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWo THoUSAND AND rwrNriirvi".",,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINA LAPPEAL NO :866OF 2012

¶8

rnrs##,?t#iiilf '$[ti',,.t,s][:k:xfff *ii,#:'',i#

¶9

Between:

¶10

Medi Saidulu, S/o. IVtr Viilase, c h ityar r;";:i:iJ3 lH1"t"o,:l?,:lY'^{occ Lorry D river,} R/o. Verm ined u

¶11

Medi Anitha, W/o. tu virds;,"i;ity"i il;#1i'i,':,!f3l'B,.,#to'n",^{occ coorie,,} R/o Verminedu

¶12

AND

¶13

...Appellants/Accused No.1 & S

¶14

The State of A.p Hyderabad. Rep by the Public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh,

¶15

...RespondenUComplaina nt

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V Raghunath

¶17

counsel for the Respono"",, Reddy, Additionat ?.J#,J,Jr"flT:a

¶18

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶19

( i

¶20

THE HON,BLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶21

CRIMINAL^{APPEALNo. 866oF 20t2}

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

This appeal^{is filed by the appellants/Al & A5' aggrievedby} theconvictionrecordedbytheJudge,FamilyCourt-cumAdditional^{District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.4o2of} 2O 10, for^{the offence underSection 498-A of the IndianPenal} Code

¶24

The case of^{the prosecutionis that PW. 1 is the fatherof} Suvarna^{(deceased) who was married' to the 1"1 appellant'After} marriage, the^{deceasedand the first appellant lived together' and} the deceased^{gave birth to two daughters' Three years after the} marriage,^{the 1"t appellant/ husbandand A2 to A4 (acquitted} accused)^{demandedadditionaldowry' Vexedwith the constant} harassment,^{the deceased committed suicide ot 20 07 '2OO9'}

¶25

On the basis^{ofthe compiaintof PW'l' acrrmewas} registered for^{the offenceunderSection304-8 of the IndianPenal} Code. However,^{during the course of the investigation' itwas} found that^{there was no demandfor additional dowry' as such'} the appellants^{aldotherswere charge sheeted for the offences} under Sections^{498-Aand 306 of the Indian Penal Code'}

¶26

¶27

4' During the course of trial, the father of the deceased/ defacto complainant turned hostile. All the relatives ald independent witnesses, who are examined as pWs.2 to 11, a_lso turned hostile to the prosecution case.

¶28

Learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the Dying Declaration of the deceased, stated that the l$ appellant/Al was having illicit intimacy with the 2.d appellant/A5, who is the co_ sister of the deceased. On the basis of the said statement, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no abetment by the appellants or other accused in the deceased,s commission of suicide, however, the physicar relation in between Al and A5 amounted to cruelt5r.

¶29

The husband of the 2.a appellant/ AS was also charge sheeted. It appears that the deceased suspected the 1st appellant of having a relationship with the 2.d appellalt. The police, during the investigation, did not collect any evidence to speak about the relationship between these appellants.

¶30

The allegation made in the Dying Declaration, in the present case, cannot form basis to infer that there was any kind of harassment that was meted out. Even according to the statement of the deceased, she suspected that these appellalts were having

¶31

an aJfair. None of^{the witnesses have spoken about any kind of} relationship between^{A1 and A5. Though no corroboration would} be required for the^{Dying Declaration when reliable,however'} when the deceased,^{in the Dying Declaration,expressedsuspicion} that there was a^{relationship betweenA 1 ald A5, and, for this} reason, she committed^{suicide, the prosecut'ion ought to have} collected evidence^{regarding therelationship betweenthese} appellants.

¶32

g.Forthereasonoftherebeingnoadmissibleevidenceplaced on record by the^{prosecutionto show that the appellants were} having an iliegal affair,^{which formedthe basis for conviction, the} said conviction^{has to be aside.}

¶33

Accordingly, Criminal^{Appeaiisallowed andthe} appellants/Al & A5^{are acquitted. The conviction recordedby the} Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional^{District& Sessions Judge,} Nalgonda, in S.C.No.402^{of2OLO, is set aside' Since the} appellants/Al & A5^{are on bail, their bajl bondsshall stand} discharged.

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

sD/-K. sRlNlvASlE4g ,/ JOINT REGISTRAR srcrffikrrrcen

¶36

To,

¶37

The Judge,^{Family Court-Cum-AdditionalDistrict and SessionsJudge' at} Judiciar^{First crass Masistrate, Ramannapet,Nargonda}

¶38

, |fr:ti::i "nal i. o." iCt"^{sri V Raghunath' Advocate[OPUC]-} -C"''1 for the State of Telangana at 4 Two CCs^{to the puuric prlseiul"ilnigd} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶39