Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 1022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B V L N Chakravarthi, J.
The State Of A.P., Rep. By The Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Kondaveeti Rambabu, S/O Suryanarayana And Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No: 1246 of 2008
Decided On : 08-04-2026
For the Appellant : Public Prosecutor (AP)
For the Respondent: Rama Mohan Palanki
Conviction under dowry-death and cruelty statutes cannot be sustained based on witness testimony that has been materially impeached by prior inconsistent statements, thereby preventing the invocation of the presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Principles of appreciation of evidence - Credibility of witnesses - Reliance on previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Impeachment of testimony - Presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act - Conviction cannot be sustained when ocular testimony is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions between statements given to police and testimony before court - Evidence failing to prove cruelty soon before death or dowry-related harassment beyond reasonable doubt renders presumption under Section 113-B inapplicable. (Paras 42, 43, 44)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the respondents subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty for dowry, eventually leading to her death by hanging within seven years of marriage. The trial court acquitted the accused finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The State appealed the acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses compared to their earlier statements to the police, concluding that their reliability was severely impeached; thus, the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse due to failure to appreciate the evidence regarding dowry demand and cruelty shortly before death.
Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence suffers from material contradictions and previous statements are used to successfully impeach the witness, the burden of proof under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked, as the primary facts establishing the nexus between dowry and harassment have not been proved.
Result: Appeal dismissed; trial court acquittal upheld.
JUDGMENT :
B V L N Chakravarthi, J.
The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Court delivered on 15.06.2007 in S.C. No. 324 of 2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur.
2. The learned Sessions Judge found the respondents-accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “DP Act”), and accordingly acquitted the accused.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of Smt. Kondaveeti Krishnaveni (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) with Accused No.1 was solemnized about five years prior to the incident at Narsapur village.
4. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs. 40,000/- and agricultural land measuring 24 cents were presented to the accused towards dowry. A document was also executed in favour of the deceased one year after the marriage acknowledging the presentation of land towards dowry at the time of marriage. The deceased joined the conjugal life of Accused No.1, and they lived happily for one year. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born.
5. Later, the accused began harassing the deceased by demanding additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and also insisting that she sell the land and bring the money. The deceased was assaulted on several occasions in connection with the said demand. The issue was placed before the elders, and on their advice, a report was presented to the police. Accused No.1 came to the police station and assured that he would not harass the deceased in future.
6. Two days prior to the death of the deceased, PW8, the mother of the deceased, visited the house of Accused No.1. At that time, Accused No.1 beat the deceased in her presence, demanding additional dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and insisting that she sell the land. PW8 returned home and informed PW1, the brother of the deceased, about the harassment and requested him to visit the house of Accused No.1 to resolve the issue.
7. Accordingly, PW1 and PW7 went to the house of Accused No.1. The house was found locked. PW1 complained to PW9 about the cruelty committed by Accused No.1. PW9 requested his wife to accompany PW1 and PW7 to the house of Accused No.1. Accordingly, they visited the house, where PW1 found the deceased hanging from the ceiling of the hut. He raised cries, and villagers gathered at the spot. Injuries were noticed on the cheek and neck of the deceased. The accused were not found in the house.
8. PW1 went to Mogalthuru Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report at about 8:30 p.m. on 21.10.2005. PW15, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogalthuru Police Station, registered the same as Crime No. 150 of 2005 under Ex.P10 FIR and submitted it to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Narsapur.
9. PW15 issued a requisition to PW13, Mandal Revenue Officer, to conduct an inquest. PW15 visited the scene of offence at Kondaveeti Kadapa village, secured mediators, and seized MO1-saree under a cover of observation report. PW16, the photographer, took photographs of the dead body.
10. PW13 conducted the inquest at the house of Accused No.1 in Kondaveeti Kadapa village in the presence of mediators under Ex.P6 inquest proceedings. PW12, the Village Revenue Officer, attested the inquest proceedings along with other mediators. They opined that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the accused. The dead body was later shifted to the Government Hospital for autopsy. PW13 recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 7 during the inquest.
11. PW14, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Narsapur, conducted the autopsy and issued Ex.P7 postmortem certificate. As per Ex.P9 final opinion, the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.
12. PW17, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, conducted further investigation and, upon completion, filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
13. The
