THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.914 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is questioning the judgment dated 23.02.2012 in Crl.A.No.17 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC) Warangal, Warangal District.

2. Heard Sri K.Dinesh Chakrawarty, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The appellant is the defacto complaint. On the basis of the complaint filed by him with the Police, the Police investigated the case, and filed a charge sheet under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC against the respondent/accused. The trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 306 of IPC and convicted him under Section 498-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused approached the Sessions Court. The leaned Sessions Judge, vide Crl.A.No.17 of 2012 by judgment dated 26.04.2012, acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to Saleema Bee (deceased), who is the daughter of the appellant herein, 12 years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, dowry was given, and the deceased gave birth to two boys, who were aged 11 years and 7 years at the time of incident. The accused was addicted to alcohol. He used to take money from the deceased and was not doing any work.

5. According to the prosecution, one month prior to the date of the incident, the accused started harassing the deceased to sell the house property in which they were staying, which had been given as dowry. Unable to bear the continuous harassment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 25.11.2010 by jumping into Laknavaram tank along with her two children.

6. The Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

7. The learned trial Judge, having considered the evidence on record, found that the allegation of abetting suicide was not proved, and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 306 of IPC, while convicting him under Section 498-A of IPC.

8. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the entire allegation of harassment was informed to the parents of the deceased by the deceased. The witnesses have made improvements during the course of the trial, and the entire case relied upon by the trial Court was based on improvements made during the trial. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prime witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased. There was no direct demand made at any point of time by the accused, and the entire information regarding the harassment was conveyed only through the deceased.

9. Learned Sessions Judge further relied on two letters, Exs.P.3 and P.5, written by the accused. In the said letters, there was no demand for dowry.

10. For the reasons that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 revealed that the allegation that the deceased was being harassed was only conveyed by the deceased, and the letters which were filed did not reflect any demand for additional dowry or instances of harassment, the accused was acquitted.

11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles o