Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 152
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
SYED NAZEEB PASHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. – Respondent
CRLA/1020/2010
The prosecution must prove unlawful dowry demands and harassment to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B; failure to do so may lead to a conviction under Section 498-A for cruelty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-B - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Conviction for dowry death - The appellant was convicted under Section 304-B for dowry death but the conviction was overturned due to lack of evidence of harassment for dowry prior to death - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 304-B, leading to a conviction under Section 498-A for cruelty instead. (Paras 9, 12, 13)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish that the death occurred within 7 years of marriage and that there was an unlawful demand for dowry, resulting in harassment. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the death of his wife, who died under suspicious circumstances shortly after their marriage, with allegations of dowry demands and harassment. The evidence presented included testimonies from family members and medical reports indicating injuries. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 304-B but established that the appellant's actions constituted cruelty under Section 498-A, resulting in a 6-month sentence. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved unlawful dowry demands and harassment leading to the wife's death. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for a conviction under Section 304-B, as there was no evidence of harassment for dowry prior to the death, but sufficient evidence for cruelty under Section 498-A. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of marriage and demands (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense argument on accidental death (Para 6) |
| 3. evidence of witnesses and injuries (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ingredients for section 304-b (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conviction under section 498-a (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2010 in S.C.No.146 of 2010, on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam District. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonment.
2. Heard Sri Veluri Ravi Kumar, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/Accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The prosecution version is that the accused married the deceased in the year 2003 and at the time of marriage, Rs.20,000/- cash, 3 tulas of gold and 3 pairs of silver anklets were given. Parents of the deceased gave Rs.30,000/- to the accused. The deceased gave birth to two children, one daughter and one son. After the death of the son, accused started demanding money. Two or three times, parents of the deceased gave Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- on the demand of the accused. The appellant and deceased were married earlier. After leaving their spouses, appellant and deceased married.
After receiving money, the accused and deceased came over to Kothagudem, where the parents of the deceased lived and opened a cloth shop. After exhausting all the money, the accused again shifted to Khammam. On demand by the accused, parents of the deceased gave motor cycle to the accused. But the accused pledged the motor cycle and spent money on drinking. Inspite of caution by elders, the appellant continued harassing the deceased. While so, on the date of death, at 3 a.m., the appellant called the parents of the deceased and informed about the death of the deceased. Parents of the deceased along with other relatives went to Khammam and saw the dead body and found injuries on the right side of eye, on her back, on the temporal region and also on both thighs of the deceased. Suspecting that the appellant was responsible for the death of their daughter, father of the deceased lodged a complaint.
4. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 9, mother-in-law and brother- in-law of the appellant, who spoke about harassment by the appellant for additional dowry. The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the complaint that was filed under Ex.P.1.
5. Learned Sessions Judge further found that death was unnatural on the basis of evidence of post mortem Doctor and also P.W.2 who treated the deceased on 23.06.2008 and also on 24.06.2008. The deceased died on 24.06.2008 and the complaint was filed on 25.06.2008 at 1 p.m. The Investigating Officer went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchnama, examined witnesses and sent the body to post mortem examination. After concluding inquest proceedings, post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 found two contusions 2 x 2 on the forehead and occipital region. According to P.W.8, cause of death was ‘cranio cerebral injury’.
6. Learned legal aid counsel would submit that according to final report filed by the Investigating Officer, the injury caused to the deceased was on account of 4 year old child who while playing with a wooden cricket bat accidentally hit the deceased on the forehead, for which reason, there was a contusion. However, the said revelation during investigation was not stated by the Investigating Officer nor elicited by the counsel in the trial Court. Legal aid counsel further argued that there is no evidence placed on record to suggest that the appellant had in any manner harassed the deceased for additional dowry in proximity to her death. When the death was accidental, the question of attracting an offence under Section 304-B of IPC does not arise.
7. Having gone through the record, according to P.W.1, moth
