IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.367 OF 2013 DATE: 31.03.2026 Between:

Tupakula Balraj … Appellant and The State of A.P., by the Public Prosecutor … Respondent : JUDGMENT :

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant–Accused No.1 against the judgment dated 25.03.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.528 of 2011 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), convicted, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 3 have harassed the deceased for want of dowry causing the death of the deceased within seven years of marriage. Hence, they are charged with Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of DP Act and Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC.

3. After following due procedure, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad heard the accused on the charges and conducted the trial.

4. During the trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 and MOs 1 to 4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, whereas none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked.

5. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant – A1 guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC, while he was not found guilty of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.

6. Heard the submissions of Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the witnesses, including the parents and brother of the deceased, have turned hostile and have not deposed anything against the appellant, but still the trial Court convicted the appellant without there being any convincing evidence on record. He further submitted that there is no concrete evidence before the trial Court to connect the appellant with the alleged crime of harassing the deceased soon before her death for want of dowry. There are no eye witnesses to the incident, and the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses does not establish a complete chain of events connecting the appellant with the crime. He therefore submitted that the trial Court based its conviction merely on assumptions and presumptions, and thus, the judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. He therefore prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and thereby acquit the appellant.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, though the witnesses have turned hostile, during their cross- examination they admitted the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor and thus proved the case of the prosecution, and that their evidence in cross-examination clinchingly proves the offence against the appellant. He further submitted that the deceased died due to burns