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

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
G. SRI DEVI, J.
Boddupally Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2020
Decided On : 22-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :G. Jaya Reddy, Advocate

Point of law: To indicate that the expression 'soon before' would normally implied that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the affect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1806 - Section 304-B, 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 113-(B) 3 and 4 - Dowry Death –Whoever takes or entices away any women - Immediately after marriage, deceased was taken to house of accused and there, A-1 and deceased lived happily for four months and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started harassing deceased for additional dowry - Whether a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. has been made out, even if accusations under Section 304-B of I.P.C. fail. Section 498-A of I.P.C - Whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, Court shall presume that such person had caused dowry death –

Finding of the court : Provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry - A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment - Prosecution has to rule out possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within purview of 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances - Court that evidence is eschewed from consideration appellant cannot be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant/A1 for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 beyond all reasonable doubt and that he is entitled to benefit of doubt –

Result : Criminal Appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. Accused No. 1, in Sessions Case No. 178 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. He along with two others, were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. By its judgment, dated 30.12.2019, the learned trial Judge while acquitting A-2 and A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., convicted A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, according to the evidence let in during the course of trial, is that one Ashwini (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was the elder daughter of P.W. 1-Mididoddi Ramachandru and she was given in marriage to A-1 three years prior to the date of offence. At the time of marriage, P.W. 1 presented cash of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, 5 ½ tulas of gold ornaments and other household articles. Immediately after the marriage, the deceased was taken to the house of the accused and there, A-1 and the deceased lived happily for four months and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and one motorcycle. On the demand made by A-1 to A-3, P.W. 1 informed to the deceased and A-1 to A-3 that he will arrange the additional dowry of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and motorcycle to A-1 at the time of Sankranthi festival. Three days thereafter, P.W. 1 received a phone call from the younger brother of A-1 that the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received injuries and she was admitted in Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and immediately, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 went to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, but they did not find the deceased in the hospital. The R.M.P. doctor of Korlapahad Village, informed them that the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nakrekal, then they went there and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries on the right shoulder and chest.

3. On 09.11.2013, P.W. 1 lodged a report (Ex. P1) with P.W. 26-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Basing on the said report, P.W. 26 registered a case in Crime No. 157 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of I.P.C. and issued Ex. P24-First Information Report. He recorded the statement of PW. 1 and sent the F.I.R. to all the concerned. On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W. 27-the Inspector of Police, took up investigation and proceeded to the Primary Health Centre, Nakrekal, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws. 19 to 22. Ex. P18 is the inquest report. During the inquest, P.W. 12 (trained constable) photographed and videographed the dead body and P.W. 19 seized M.Os. 1 to 4 in the presence of P.Ws. 16 and 20. Thereafter, P.W. 27 proceeded to the scene of offence, prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws. 17 and 18 and also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which are placed on record as Exs. P26 and P27. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6 at the scene of offence. Later, the dead body was sent to Community Health Ce

          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 Back to top