SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Suresh Reddy, Subba Reddy Satti, JJ.
Malkari Radha Bai and another – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor

Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dowry death cases; lack of sufficient evidence to establish ongoing harassment led to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B and 498-A - Criminal Appeals arising from convictions for dowry death and cruelty. The deceased died within seven years of marriage; evidence of ongoing harassment and demand for dowry presented but ultimately held insufficient to prove charges against accused. Convictions set aside due to lack of credible evidence. (Paras 5, 29, 30)

(B) Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; close examination of witness credibility is crucial in dowry-related crimes. (Paras 20, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from convictions under IPC for alleged dowry-related harassment and death of the married woman shortly after marriage, with prosecution alleging cruelty and wrongful demands for additional dowry. However, evidence was found far from reliable due to significant gaps in establishing a direct link between alleged cruelty and death.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to sufficiently connect the accused to the alleged crime of dowry death, leading to a determination that convictions were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accusations of dowry-related harassment and cruelty against the accused shortly before the death of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that quality and credibility of evidence were lacking, and the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt warranted the setting aside of convictions.

Result: Appeals allowed, convictions and sentences set aside, accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. charges against accused related to dowry death and cruelty. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments for and against the accused's conviction. (Para 12 , 13)
3. overview of sections 304-b ipc and 113-b of the evidence act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. key considerations for proving dowry death. (Para 20 , 22 , 23)
5. court's doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses. (Para 25 , 29)
6. conclusion overturning the trial court's conviction. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Subba Reddy Satti, J.

Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, i.e., S.C.No.218 of 2017, on the file of the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, at Gooty, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Accused Nos.2 & 3 in the above Sessions Case filed Criminal Appeal No.2301 of 2018 and accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.2600 of 2018. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:

The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC.

The last charge was under Section 304-B r/w 34 IPC or 302 IPC.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this common judgment are referred to as they were arrayed in S.C.No.218 of 2017.

4. Substance of the charge is that A-1 being husband, A-2 and A-3 being in-laws of M.Lakshmi Rajyam @ Rajya Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as deceased), subjected her to cruelty for want of additional dowry; that the deceased died on 04.03.2016 at about 7.00 p.m. by falling under a train, within 7 years of marriage; the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her death and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 or 302 IPC.

5. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted accused No.1 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants field a memo vide USR No.141377/2025 stating that appellant No.2/accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018 died pending the appeal. In view of the said fact, Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018, by order dated 18.12.2025, was dismissed as abated insofar as appellant No.2/accused No.3 is concerned. Both the appeals are taken up for hearing insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.

7. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence, briefly, is as follows:

(i) P.W.3 is the father, P.W.4 is the brother, and P.W.10 is the paternal uncle of the deceased, respectively. A-1 is the husband, A-2 and A-3 are in-law of the deceased respectively. The marriage between the deceased and A-1 was solemnised about 6 years prior to the date of incident. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 150 grams of gold and other household articles towards dowry. One month after the marriage, all the accused started harassing the deceased to bring gold ornaments and Pattu clothes towards ‘Vadibiyyam’ every year from her parents. The accused also harassed the deceased, as she failed to conceive children. P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital in Hyderabad, where fertility tests were conducted, and no defect was found with the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 10 went to the house of accused and gave Rs.50,000/- to A-1 and chastised them to le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top