THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2009 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 BETWEEN: STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. .. APPELLANT AND G.SARAVANA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. State has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.213 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupathi, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge found A1 G.Saravana, A2- S.Nagabhushanamma, A3-G.Panchaksharam and A4-R.Rajamanikyam not guilty for the offence under section 304-B IPC and acquitted them accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is : A1 and A3 are sons of A2. A4 is brother of A2. P.W.1 D.Mani Muthu and P.W.10 M.Manimala are parents of M.Prema. M.Prema was married to A1 on 7.9.2003 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati. At the time of marriage, her parents presented 40 sovereigns of gold jewellery to her and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels to A1. A1 to A3 started harassing her and demanding her to get additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs from her parents. During November 2003, P.W.1 D.Mani Muthu and P.W.10 M.Manimala, parents of M.Prema, came to the house of the accused and asked A2 to send A1 and M.Prema to their house for Deepavali festival. A2 refused to send her son-A1 and demanded P.W.1 to give additional dowry and that she would send them after receiving additional dowry. Thereupon, P.W.1 took M.Prema to his house where she stayed for four days. Later, P.W.1 brought M.Prema to the house of the accused. On 20.12.2003, M.Prema alone went to her parents house while she was carrying third month pregnancy. She informed her parents that A1 to A3 bet her on the instigation of A4 and drew her out from the house with instructions to get additional dowry. Later, a panchayat was held wherein the accused demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs as additional dowry. P.W.1 agreed to give Rs.2.00 lakhs after Sankranthi festival and the balance amount at the time of construction of new house by the accused. The accused having agreed to the proposal made by P.W.1 allowed M.Prema to stay in their house. On 13.1.2004 at about 9.A.M. M.Prema went into her bedroom situated at third floor of the building and committed suicide by hanging herself. On seeing the dead body of M.Prema (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), A1 jumped from the terrace to commit suicide and thereby sustained fracture injuries. He was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, and treated there as an inpatient. P.W.1 went to the Police Station and presented Ex.P.1 report. The S.H.O., East Police Station, Tirupati received Ex.P.1 report and registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2004 under section 304-B IPC. After due investigation, a chargesheet came to be submitted before the Additional JMFC, Tirupati. The learned Magistrate took the chargesheet on file as P.R.C.No.19 of 2004 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Chittoor as the offence under section 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.213 of 2004 and made over the same to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 304-B IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked 19 documents and exhibited 6 Mos. The plea of the accused was one of total denial. The accused marked two documents as Exs.D1 and D2. On considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 304-B IPC and acquitted them accordingly, by judgment impugned in this appeal. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner- State and perused the judgment impugned in this appeal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not properly appreciated by the trial court and thereby the trial court committed error in discarding their testimony. A further submission has been made that the deceased committed suicide while residing in her in-laws house and in which case an inference is to be drawn that the death of the deceased is of dowry death. 4. The Supreme Court in TULSIRAM KANU V. STATE[1] held that the appellate court would be justified in reversing the acquittal only when very substantial question and compelling reasons are present. In STATE OF U.P v. RAM SAJIVAN[2] the Supreme Court has reviewed the powers of the appellate court in reversing the judgment of acquittal and enunciated the following principles: 1) The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2) The accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The High Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3) There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for reversing an order of acquittal. 5. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused under section 307 IPC. Of these witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 9 and 13 did not support the prosecution and the prosecution declared them hostile. It is to be noted that P.Ws.2 and 3 are no other than sisters of P.W.1 and there is no reason for them to help the accused. The entire cases rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 10, 11,12, 18 and 19. Of these PWs.1 and 10 are the material witnesses being the parents of the deceased. It is the version of the prosecution that parents of the deceased presented gold ornaments at the time of marriage on the demand being made by the accused. This version proved to be false by the evidence of P.W.1 who stated that gold ornaments came to be presented to the deceased as well as A1 as per their custom. The evidence of P.W.1 on this aspect has been extracted in para 19 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: “ 19. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of the deceased Prema with A1, her parents i.e. P.Ws.1 and 10 presented some 5 sovers of gold to A1 as dowry. But, P.W.1 at the time of his chief examination itself clearly deposed that at the time of marriage of his daughter, he presented 40 sovers of gold to his daughter Prema and 5 sovers of gold to A1 as a custom. Even at one stge of his cross-examination also, P.W.1 clearly admitted that as a custom he presented one wrist watch, one minor gold chain and a gold ring to A1. So that part of the evidence of P.W.1, father of the deceased itself is sufficient that there is no truth in the case of the prosecution with regard to giving dowry to the accused by P.Ws.1 and 10 at the time of marriage.” 6. With regard to the incidence of harassment there seems to be no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 though four accused persons were put on trial under section 304-B IPC. P.Ws.1 and 10 did not whisper a word against A3 and A4. This aspect has been pointed out by the trial court in para 20 of the judgment. The rest of the evidence is required to be considered against A1 and A2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 10 is contradictory to each other with regard to the alleged harassments attributed to the accused. The trial court has pointed out the inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in para 21 of the judgment. By giving cogent and convincing reasons, the trial court refused to place reliance on the testimony of P.W.1 and 10. Once the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.10 is excluded, there is no other evidence to substantiate the charge levelled on the accused for the offence under section 304-B IPC. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 16th February 2010. ( B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ) TNB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2009 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 [1] AIR 1954 SC 1 [2] (2010) 1 SCC 529