Bujunuru Indra Reddy, Nalgonda Dist., And 2 Otrs. v. The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyderabad.

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused 2 and 3 and Petitioner No. 1-Accused were directed to be released on bail by order of the Hon'ble High Court vide Orders daled o7-og-zoro and 08-09-2010 in in. n. M. P. No. 1556 0f 2010 and crl. A. M. P. No. 1583 of 2010 respectively in Crl. A. No. 945 of 2010. IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 945 OF 2010 criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of crl.P.c against the Judgment Dated o3-08-2olO in s.c.No. 187 I 2OO8 on the file of the court of the Principal Sessions Judge- Nalgonda.

Between:

1. Buiunuru lndra Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy Rl/o. Gatlamallepally Village, (algonda District.

Venkat Reddy Rl/o. Gatlamallepally Village'

2. Bujunuru Malla ReddY, S/o Nalgonda District.

3. Bujunuru Mangamma, W/o Nalgonda District.

f\rlalla Reddv Fl/o. Gatlamallepally Village'

...APELLANTS/ACCUSED No. 'l to 3 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor !1lSh Court of Andhra Pradesh, HVOeraUaO.

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. P. NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.945 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT:

The appellants-accused Nos.l to 3 were convicted for the offences under Section 304-8 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a-lso sentenced under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased who is the u,ife of accused No. 1, got married 15 months prior to her death. The dead body of the deceased was found on O3.O7.2OO7 ar-rd Ex.P 1 complaint was lodged on O4.O7.2OO7. In the said complaint of the VRO i.e. PW- 1, it is mentioned that the death of the deceased had taken place on O3.O7 .2OO7 and requested the Police to conduct investigation. The said complaint was registered on the very same day under Section 174 of Cr.P.C for the reason of the death berng suspicious.

3.

Having investigated the case, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 3O2 and 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

4.

According to the investigation, at the time of marriage, 1"t appellant/husband had takendowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from the /

r+;# KS,] Crl.A.No.945 of 2010 parents of the deceased ald thereafter, all the three appellants were harassing her physically and mentally to get additional amount of Rs.2,0O,OO0/-. The said marriage was performed on 20.O4.2OO7. However, on 03.07.2007, the deceased was found dead. According to the version of the Investigating Officer, accused No.l picked up a quarrel with his deceased wife stating that she was not bringing the demanded amount, and beat her with hands in her stomach, chest and throttled her neck, for which reasons she died.

5.

The charges under Sections 302, 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act were framed against the appellants' 6.

The learned Sessions judge having examined the witnesses PW-1 to 12 on the behalf of the prosecution, found that the prosecution failed to establish aly of the ingredients under Section 302 of IPC. However, since the deceased died within seven years of their marriage and it was stated by the witness that there was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,OO,00O/-, the learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the appellants are guilty for the offence under Section 304 -B of IPC. As seen from the complaint, which was given by VRO i'e' PW-l, there was no allegation of any kind of harassment to his knowledge. However, since the death was suspicious, he requested the police

Crl.A.No.e4s of ;1d to investigate the case. No separate complaint was given by the parents of the deceased. However, during the course of examination by the police, they stated about additional dowry demand of Rs.2,OO,O00/ made by the appellants. The marriage was performed on 20.O4.2OO7 and the death occurred on 03.O7.2OO7 i.e. within 70 days of the marriage. 7.

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered and the cause of her death according to the PW. 1's report is on account of throttling.

8.

The respondent State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against accused No.l only and against accused Nos.2 and 3, the charges under Section 498-A and Section 4 of DP Act were framed. 9.

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered. hou,ever, there is no evidence of who committed the murder, except the confessional statement in the case. There was no other evidence supporting the case of the prosecution that the I't appellant i.e., Accused No.1 committed the murder of the deceased.

r:::d :j*rr{ _\ ca.n.ruo.g+s or A?J

10. The evidence of the alleged murder is circumstantial in nature, however, the prosecution failed to substantiate any such circumstances for which reason the 1"t appellant was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

1 1 . Only on the basis of an allegation that there was demand of Rs.2,00,000/-, it cannot be inferred that the appellants a-re liable to be convicted under Section 304-8 of IPC. Section 3O4-B of IPC is not a lesser offence to Section 3O2 of IPC. If the death occurs under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and there is an allegation of dowry harassment soon before the death, on the basis of such evidence, a person can be convicted under Section 304-8 of IPC.

12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the husband murdered the deceased. According to the postmortem report Ex.P3, the death was due to throttling. Not believing the version that the husband murdered the deceased, the Court carnot convict only on the basis of the death and conclude that an offence under Section 304-8 of IPC is attracted.

13. There is a specific allegation that there was harassment was for additional dowry. Irrespective of the death being homicidal, the evidence oLharassment during the lifetime of the deceased

crl.A.No.e4s of ;ld cannot be ignored only for the reason of the prosecution not proving as to who caused the death by throttling'

14. This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the conviction under Section 304-8 of IPC. However, conviction under Section 4g8AoflPCarrdSection4ofDPActaremaintainedinviewofthe consistent evidence of harassment for additional dowry'

15. In so far as the accused Nos.2 ald 3 are concerned, the imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone ' However, imprisonment one year is maintained against accused No.1 under both counts which shall run concurrently' 16.. The bail bonds of accused Nos'2 and 3 shall stand discharged. The learned Magistrate shall take steps !o cause appearance of accused No'1 and send him to the jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence'

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed' i Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' I L Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// /' _'

qfl) SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge- Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. (with records if any)

2. The Judicial [\4agistrate of First Class, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District.

3. The Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Superintendent, Women prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad.

5. The Station House Officer Nampally IVlandal, Nalgonda District.

6. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Cou( for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad(OUT).

7. One CC to SRl. P. NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate tOpUCl

8. Two CD Cooies \ DL \'t.--.

i I l

HIGH COURT DATED:0510712O23 1i9 SlAT ( o (.) 2\ [uB ?m v C)

ORDER

ar CRLA.No.945 ot 2010 t^ i':it-'

Crl. A IS PARLTY ALLOWED k