IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
B. Sridevi and Another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.8619 of 2024
Decided On : 28-01-2026
ORDER :
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.110 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, registered for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
02. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused; Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and Sri V. Venkat Ram Narsaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.
03(a). The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The complainant-respondent No.2 is the father of Revuri Niharika Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased was married to the accused No.1. The accused No.2 is the mother of the accused No.1; the petitioner-accused No.3 is his sister; and the petitioner- accused No.4 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.3. The marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.08.2021 at Paradise Function Hall, Kazipet, in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that, pursuant to the demands of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the respondent No.2 gave a net cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a plot admeasuring 300 Sq.yds worth approximately Rs.1 crore situated at Julaiwada, Hanamkonda, and gold ornaments weighing about 8 tulas to the accused Nos.1 and 2 as dowry.
03(b). It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam was given to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. Subsequent to the marriage, the accused Nos.1 to 4 treated the deceased well for about one year. During this period, the deceased and the accused No.1 were blessed with a female child. About six months prior to the incident, the deceased and the accused No.1 took a house on rent at Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, and were residing there. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly started subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment, demanding that she bring an additional dowry amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs from her parents, stating that the accused No.1 had incurred hospital expenses towards treatment of their child. The deceased informed the respondent No.2 about the harassment, whereupon her parents visited the house of the accused No.1 and requested the accused Nos.1 to 4 to wait for some time, assuring them that they would arrange the demanded amount. However, despite this assurance, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry.
03(c). It is further alleged that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, who reside at Prashanthnagar, Hanamkonda, used to frequently visit the rented house at Bhavani Nagar, and, along with the accused No.2, subjected the deceased to harassment. About four days prior to the incident, the accused No.2 came to reside with the accused No.1 and the deceased in the said rented house. During this period, the accused No.2 allegedly called the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 to the house, and all of them harassed the deceased. When the deceased expressed the said grievance to the accused No.1, he allegedly supported the accused No.2 instead of restraining her. The deceased again informed the respondent No.2 about the harassment. Consequently, on 10.05.2023, her parents visited the rented house at Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, and consoled her. On that occasion, the accused No.2 allegedly abused the parents of the deceased in filthy language, upon which they returned to their residence the same day.
03(d). It is alleged that, after their departure, on the night of 10.05.2023, the accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry until about 23:00 hours. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused Nos.1 to 4, the deceased went into her bedroom, bolted the door from inside, and committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with a cotton saree. On the ne
The court highlighted that vague and omnibus allegations without specific attribution to accused do not uphold a prima facie case under Section 304B IPC.
Dowry death – Once prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, presumption....
Insufficient evidence against accused to establish charges under 304B, 302, or 201 IPC; discharge granted while retaining lesser charges under 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the presumption of dowry de....
The court mandated that for a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate a proximate link between cruelty and the death, which was found lacking in this case.
Continuous harassment before death must be proven for dowry death under Section 304-B; mere past incidents are insufficient to establish liability.
To convict under Section 304-B IPC, it must be proven that the victim faced cruelty for dowry-related demands occurring soon before death, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence of harassment 'soon before death' to sustain a conviction under IPC 304-B, and the need for independent corro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.