Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1496 (TS)

State of Telangana v. Sakinala Niahesh

2025-11-13

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (‘Sessions Judge’ for brevity) in S.C.No.188 of 2015 dated 10.03.2016 whereunder the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP’ Act for brevity). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2015, at 21.00 hours the complainant/PW.1/Agaboina Saraiah lodged a complaint stating that he has two daughters aged 20 years and 17 years respectively. The complainant is working as a Constable in Regonda Police Station. At that time his elder daughter by name Sagarika i.e., deceased victim used to attend college at Parkal. During the course of her college education, accused No.1 used to follow her in the name of love and finally married her on 03.02.2013. The couple lived amicably for some time. Thereafter, accused No.1 and his parents started harassing the victim alleging that she did not bring dowry and that she shall be allowed to stay at home only if she brings dowry. Victim informed about this harassment to the complainant and his wife. Accused Nos.1 to 3 also harassed the victim by pointing at her for belonging to S.T. Community. 2.2 It is alleged that accused No.1 has threatened victim of doing second marriage in case she does not get dowry from her parents by abusing and beating her. The complainant and others went to Peddampalli and gave Rs.1,00,000/- and requested the accused to look after the deceased and they lived well for sometime and thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 3 continued harassing her. The deceased/victim has made phone calls to the complainant and his wife and expressed apprehension that the accused Nos.1 to 3 would kill her for want of additional dowry. The complainant asked victim to come back to the house but she refused stating that she has brought dishonor to the family by going away and marrying Accused No.1. On 14.02.2015 at 05.00 p.m. when the complainant was on duty, a person by name Sambaiah made phone call and informed that victim committed suicide by hanging. 2.3. The complainant asked victim to come back to the house but she refused stating that she has brought dishonor to the family by going away and marrying Accused No.1. On 14.02.2015 at 05.00 p.m. when the complainant was on duty, a person by name Sambaiah made phone call and informed that victim committed suicide by hanging. 2.3. On receiving the information, the complainant took his wife, younger daughter and his sister-in-law and went to Peddampalli. When the complainant and his relatives reached Peddampalli, they saw the dead body of victim on a cot in the house of the accused. Hence, a complaint is lodged for necessary action against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for harassing the deceased for additional dowry which resulted in her suicide. 3. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Accused. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed offence. The prosecution discharged their liability by proving entire case by examining the PW1 to PW14 and exhibit P1 to P10. However, the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. He further submitted that the PW1, who is none other than the father of the deceased victim, specifically stated about the harassment made by accused No.1 for dowry and PW1 in his averments specifically deposed that he went to the house of accused No.1 and handed over Rs.1,00,000/-. In spite of the same, without taking into consideration of the above said evidence of the PW1, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC. 4.1. He further submitted that on behalf of respondents-accused, the defence counsel placed the exhibit D1 Suicide note. However, the same is only a Xerox copy that cannot be looked into. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is liable to be set aside and the accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for punishment for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of D.P. Act. 5. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to the settled principles of law and the same is liable to be set aside and the accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for punishment for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of D.P. Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3, vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, rightly came to a conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 3 have not committed the offence and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and rightly acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences with which they were charged. He further submitted that according to the allegations made in the complaint by the PW1 who is none other than the father of the deceased victim the alleged incident was taken place on 14.02.2015. Learned counsel vehemently contended that even according to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 14.02.2015 at 04.00 P.M. However, the FIR has been sent to the Court on 16.02.2015 with a substantial delay of 2 days without explaining any reasons and the inquest was conducted on 15.02.2015 at Government Hospital, Parkal and the same was fatal to the case of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are none other than parents of the deceased victim. The other witnesses PW4, PW5, and PW7 turned hostile. PW3 also not supported the version of the prosecution. He further submitted that PW2 in her evidence specifically deposed that she never visited the house of the deceased and the said amount was sent through villagers to accused No.1 whereas in PW1 in his evidence stated that he handed over the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused No.1. He further submitted it is a love marriage without the consent of the parents and the relationship between the deceased victim and her parents broke down after the alleged incident. PW1, who is working as a constable lodged the complaint by making false allegations about the alleged harassment of dowry. At no point of time neither the deceased nor her parents lodged any complaint about the harassment of dowry either against accused No.1 or his parents. PW1, who is working as a constable lodged the complaint by making false allegations about the alleged harassment of dowry. At no point of time neither the deceased nor her parents lodged any complaint about the harassment of dowry either against accused No.1 or his parents. In the absence of any allegations under section 498-A of IPC, the ingredients for the offence under section 304-B of IPC does not attract. The learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the marriage of accused No.1 and the deceased was solemnized on 03.02.2013. Even according to the prosecution, their marriage is a love marriage. The judgment further reveals that the incident was occurred on 14.02.2015 at 04.00 PM in the evening and the crime was registered on the very same day. The inquest was conducted on 15.02.2015 at Government Hospital, Parkal. However, the F.I.R was not handed over to the concerned Court and the said F.I.R has been sent to the Court on 16.02.2015 with an inordinate delay of 2 days. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 rightly pointed out that the delay in sending F.I.R to the Court is fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW2, who is none other than the mother of the deceased victim, in her deposition, specifically stated that she and PW1 never went to the house of accused No.1 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was sent through villagers to the accused No.1. Per contra, PW1 in his evidence stated that he went to the house of the accused No.1 and given Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused Nos.1. Except PW1, none of the family members went to meet the deceased at the time of giving dowry amount to the accused No.1 to 3 nor the prosecution placed any supporting evidence. Per contra, PW1 in his evidence stated that he went to the house of the accused No.1 and given Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused Nos.1. Except PW1, none of the family members went to meet the deceased at the time of giving dowry amount to the accused No.1 to 3 nor the prosecution placed any supporting evidence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents rightly pointed out that PW1 has not stated in the evidence about the mode of payment of the alleged amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused No.1 to 3 and also date and time of the alleged payment was not stated in the evidence. PW1 while discharging his duties as a Government employee working as a constable only with an intention to implicate the accused Nos.1 to 3 made such allegations in his deposition. The learned Sessions Judge rightly disbelieved the version of the PW1. 9. Learned Sessions Judge while evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and in discharging their burden in proving the case beyond the reasonable doubt. The record further reveals that at no point of time neither the deceased victim nor the PW1 and PW2 made any complaint against accused about the alleged demand of dowry. 10. It is very much relevant to mention that to attract the ingredients for the offences under Section 304-B, the prosecution has to establish the offence under section 498-A. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the offence under section 498-A against the respondents. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rightly come to conclusion that the offences leveled against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under section 304B of IPC does not attract. 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 evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. 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 45] the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: “70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of D.P Act. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered since they are based on record and reasonable. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered since they are based on record and reasonable. Only on the basis of confession, conviction cannot be recorded as rightly held by the Sessions Judge. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.