THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1008 of 2017

ORDER:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (‘Sessions Judge’ for brevity) in S.C.No.38 of 2014 dated 06.04.2015 whereunder the respondents-accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘DP’ Act for brevity).

2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State. No representation on behalf of respondents-Accused either physically or virtually.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the mother of the deceased/victim. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and mother-in-law of the victim. The de-facto complainant performed the marriage of victim and accused No.1 and they were blessed with two sons. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 started harassing the deceased/victim for additional dowry. While things stood us, on 21.04.2013 at about 9.00 A.M. the de-facto complainant was informed that the deceased/victim poured turpentine oil over her body and set ablaze and she was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution erroneously acquitted the accused, though the prosecution proved the case, beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of DW1, who in his evidence deposed that deceased earlier also tried to commit the suicide and Exhibit D1, has not considered the evidence of PW12 who recorded dying declaration of the deceased and Exhibit P7 wherein the deceased specifically stated about harassment made by accused No.2. He further submitted that the accused have demanded the dowry and due to their harassment only the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the accused are liable to be convicted for the said offences and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it reveals that on 21.04.2013, the deceased poured turpentine oil over her body and then set ablaze and she was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. Basing on the complaint of PW1, crime was registered. The learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased through exhibit P7 wherein the learned Magistrate has put a specific question to the deceased whether the deceased want to say anything else, answer given by the deceased is that her husband did not utter anything against her and in the absence of her husband, her mother-in- law used to abuse her and the deceased has not stated anything against accused Nos.1 and 2 about dowry harassment. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration, the dying declaration which was recorded by PW12 came to a conclusion that the accused have not harassed the deceased for dowry. Hence, the ingredients for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act does not attract and the learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and also defence witness, rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act levelled against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 190 SC and Crl.A.No.969 of 2009 dated 12.03.2013 wherein it was held that:

“This section wo