IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.333 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Gude Rajendra @ pandu .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.333 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) in S.C.No.82 of 2005, on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru, by the judgment, dated 17.05.2007, led the State to prefer the present appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem, filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.114 of 2003 of Koyyalagudem Police Station alleging that the accused and Srilatha, the deceased, were married in the year 2001 at which time, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was agreed to be paid as dowry by Battula Punnayya and Battula Jayamma, but only Rs.10,000/- were paid. As they could not pay the balance due to their financial condition, the accused was torturing Srilatha and it was so in spite of intervention by others. The death of Srilatha on 22.11.2003 due to Vasovagel Shock leading to cardiac arrest was due to the harassment and ill-treatment by the accused. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyyalagudem Police Station, who received the report from Battula Venkateswara Rao and Battula Augasteen, brothers of the deceased, registered the crime and an inquest was held over the dead body by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koyyalagudem, on a request. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem, Eluru, got a scene of offence observation report and photographs of the dead body. He arrested the accused and autopsy was conducted by the Medical Officers over the dead body. Hence, the accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. 3. The offence was taken cognizance by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, in P.R.C.No.99 of 2004 and on the appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents. On committal of the case to the Court of Session, the case was made over to the trial Court which framed charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked by the prosecution and the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). He claimed to be out of station on that day and denied committing any offence. No defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment firstly noting that P.Ws.1 to 3, the brothers and mother of the deceased, admitted that they had no documentary evidence to prove the alleged harassment for dowry and their claim of the deceased complaining to them in this regard is only hearsay evidence. Any treatment by the accused cruelly was noted to have not been alleged by P.Ws.1 to 3. The information by one Chandram, wife of Ravi, about the death of Srilatha to P.Ws.1 to 3 was also doubted by the trial Court and it was observed that even P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted observing no external or visible injuries on the person of Srilatha. Ex.P-1-complaint was found not to refer to the payment of Rs.10,000/- and promise to pay the balance of Rs.10,000/- towards dowry and the trial Court also noted that P.Ws.1 to 3 only suspected the accused to have treated Srilatha with cruelty and harassment. The trial Court also observed that P.W.7-the Medical Officer found no external or internal injuries and the prosecution did not produce any material to show the circumstances that might have led to such shock and cardiac arrest. The death of Srilatha was within seven years after her marriage, but the other ingredient of cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before the death of Srilatha was not proved. The Court also noted the admitted absence of the accused at the house by the time of the death of Srilatha and the possibility of sustaining such a shock due to fall on a rough surface was also noted. The trial Court referred to the principles of medical jurisprudence in this regard to conclude that the accused cannot be considered to be responsible for the death. Consequently, the accused was acquitted. 5. The State, through the learned Public Prosecutor, challenged the said acquittal in this appeal contending that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. were made out by the prosecution and the physical and mental harassment of the deceased by the accused for more money having been established by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the other witnesses, the acquittal needs to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The post-mortem of the dead body of Srilatha was conducted by a team of doctors and the medical team did not find any external or internal injuries over the dead body. The external and internal examination of the dead body found everything normal and on receiving the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Report in Ex.P-6, a final report was given on Ex.P-5-Post-Mortem Report in Ex.P-7. The laboratory report did not find any poisonous substance in the pieces of stomach, liver and kidney forwarded to them. Consequently, it was opined again by the two doctors that the cause of death was Vasovagel Shock leading to cardiac arrest. P.W.7-the Medical Officer in his evidence admitted that there is a possibility of Vasovagel Shock due to fall on a heavy surface and injury because of any reeling sensation. Though he claimed congestion of liver and kidneys found by him to be possible due to non-visible injuries on stomach, etc., there was absolutely no other evidence to suspect the accused to be the cause for causing any such non- visible injuries on the stomach resulting in congestion of the liver and the kidneys. The medical evidence, thus, does not appear to be clearly suggesting a homicidal or suicidal death and there was no material to presume beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Srilatha was not a natural death. 9. Even in the Inquest Report-Ex.P-4, the independent Mediators did not note any external injuries over the dead body and specifically noted that notwithstanding the suspicion expressed by the plaintiffs, no external injuries were apparent. The suspicion of Srilatha consuming poison was ruled out by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the independent Mediators opined that they cannot come to any idea about the cause of death of the deceased due to which it had to be referred to a team of two doctors. 10. P.W.1, the elder brother of the deceased, admitted that Srilatha and the accused led happy marital life at least for one year though they did not pay the balance of Rs.10,000/- towards dowry. The witness admitted that there were no external injuries on the body of Srilatha and his suspicion about the throat of Srilatha appearing to be pressed was not supported by any medical or scientific evidence. P.W.1 admitted that he did not identify the informant as Chandram in Ex.P-1 and he does not even know whether the accused was present in the village on the date of death of Srilatha. P.W.2, another brother of Srilatha, deposed similarly, but claimed the complaints of Srilatha to be more than what was claimed by P.W.1. He also admitted there being no external injuries on Srilatha and he admitted having no evidence to show any harassment of Srilatha by the accused. Similar was the evidence of the mother of Srilatha as P.W.3 who tried to claim that the accused was beating Srilatha even during the first year of her marriage contrary to P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 also admitted that she did not know what was happening in the house of the accused and that there was no document in support of their allegations. The evidence of the other witnesses about the various events during investigation does not throw any light on the possible involvement of the accused in any criminal behaviour and the accused, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he was not in town on the date of the death of Srilatha. The earliest version in Ex.P-1 made no reference to any disputes about the dowry specifically and the version that the accused and his relatives beat Srilatha cruelly and murdered her was obviously factually incorrect. 11. In the total absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence as to the manner in which the deceased Srilatha sustained any shock leading to cardiac arrest, no criminal liability can be fastened to the accused on mere suspicion, however strong it may be. The conclusions of the trial Court in this regard cannot, therefore, be faulted and very strong reasons are required to interfere with an acquittal on merits under such circumstances which are absent in the present case. The Criminal Appeal has to, therefore, fail. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22nd November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.333 of 2009 Date: 22nd November, 2011 KL