THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.961 AND 1051 OF 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. Criminal Appeal No.961 of 2016 is filed by state and Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2016 is filed by de-facto complainant who is father-in-law of accused No.1.

2. Both these criminal appeals are filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2016 in S.C.No.717 of 2013 on the file of learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 304-B read with 201 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and respondent-accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 498-A, 302 alternatively 304-B read with 34 and 201 of IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Heard Mr. T.Balmohan Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/complainant and Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel and Mr. G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/accused and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18.06.2011, the complainant who is the father of the deceased gave a report to the Police that his daughter was taken to Apollo Hospital in an unconscious state and was declared dead. She has been married since six years and has a daughter of 3 years age. The deceased and her husband went out at 08:00 P.M. on that day and came back in the midnight hours. Based on the complaint, a case in Cr.No.285 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered.

5. During the investigation, the investigating officer, recorded the statement of the complainant, as the death occurred within 7 years of marriage of the deceased and a requisition was filed before the RDO, Secunderabad, to depute a Tahasildar to conduct inquest. A scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of two panch witnesses, which is the bedroom situated adjacent to the staircase leading to the first floor. Clues team collected the incriminating material and the dead body was shifted to mortuary of Gandhi hospital. No external injuries were found on the dead body.

6. While investigation was in progress, on 19.06.2011 at 06:00 A.M., the complainant gave another report complaining that the death of the deceased was unnatural and occurred in the matrimonial home and hence a doubt arises that she was deliberately killed by her husband. The Section of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC and further investigation was taken up by LW16, as the offence is grievous in nature. Express report was submitted to XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court to call for the original FIR.

7. The statements of the complainant was re-recorded, so also the statements of LWs.2 and 3. LW46, visited the scene of offence. The team of doctors issued PME report in the meantime, stating that the death was due to smothering. As such, on 21.06.2011, A1 was taken into custody and his confession statement was recorded. A pillow was seized, based on his confession, LW46 re-visited the scene of offence on 23.06.2011 and seized two bed sheets, one pillow cover and a party wear of the deceased and A1. The statements of other witnesses were recorded. The material objects were forwarded to FSL.

8. After concluding the investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 5, charge was framed for the offence under Sections 498, 304-B r/w 34 and 201 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act against accused Nos.1 to

5.

9.2. Alternate charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against accused No.1.

10. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 5 mainly on the ground that death was not proved to be homicidal. PW12 who is the doctor gave opinion that the death was on account of Asphyxia due to “smothering”, however, she corrected herself stating that the death was associated with consumption of intoxication of ethyl alcohol. Further, doctor during the cross e