Telangana High Court
Gandham Balaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 12 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.450 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri G. Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire record.
2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 19.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 in S.C.No.69 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet ('trial Court'). The said petition was filed to add additional charges under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('DP Act') read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein along with other offences mentioned in the charge sheet.
3. The brief facts of the case are that victim Bandaru Shobha Rani was married to respondent No.2, who is a Village Revenue Assistant and their marriage took place on 11.02.2007 as per community customs. Thereafter, in-laws of the victim harassed her mentally and physically and in that regard, C.C.No.155 of 2011 was filed by her before Wanaparthi Court.
RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 The said case was compromised before Lokadalat and victim started to live happy marital life. In the year 2017, the victim came to her parents house for Ugadi festival and on 12.04.2017 the revision petitioner herein was informed about death of the victim. When the revision petitioner and others went to the scene of offence, the dead body was already laid down on the floor by removing her from the ceiling fan. As per the prosecution case, there was quarrel between the victim and respondent No.2 herein and then she went into the room bolted the door from inside and hanged herself to the ceiling fan. The neighbours have opened the door using a pickaxe and she was removed from the ceiling fan and she died on the way to the hospital. This version is not believed by the revision petitioner herein and his family members. The revision petitioner and his family members believe that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have beaten his sister and killed her by causing injuries and falsely setup fake story. The police have registered case in Crime No.24 of 2017 under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. In this regard, Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 was filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to add charges for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial Court after giving an opportunity to both the parties to file their respective 2 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 pleadings and after hearing them, dismissed the petition vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
4. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner pleaded that the height between the ceiling fan and the ground is too large and no person can hang themselves from the ceiling fan at the scene of offence. The 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses are not perused by the police while charging the offences. There is failure to consider the settlement of dispute between the parties before Lokadalat in C.C.No.155 of 2011. Further, it is pleaded that there is a forensic report which supports the case of murder, but not suicide. The medical evidence shows that in case of hanging/suicide the possibility of hyoid bone breaking is 57%, whereas, the said bone is intact and the joint between the body and neck are not ossified mobile. This piece of forensic evidence clearly supports the case of murder and therefore, pleaded that the trial Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, which permits investigation even after the Court takes cognizance of any offence. As such, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and additional charges may be added under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused.
3
RY,J CRLRC_450_2025
5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner emphasized on forensic evidence which shows that hyoid bone was intact, which would have broken in case victim had committed suicide by hanging. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the circumstances at the scene of offence were suspicious and therefore, the version presented by the family members of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not believable. Further, it is urged that there is instance of harassment and in that regard case was registered in C.C.No.155 of 2011, which was compromised in Lokadalat. This previous history on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 shows a case of harassment and cruelty which culminated into murder of the victim and portrayal as case of suicide. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned order needs to be set aside and additional charges are to be framed under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.B.I. v. Karimullah Osan Khan1, wherein it is held that Section 216 of Cr.P.C. confers jurisdiction on all Courts, including the designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and Sub- sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure to follow after said addition or 1 Criminal Appeal No.1127 of 2009, dated 04.03.2014 4 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 alteration. It is further held that the Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., when there exist some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the charges were framed on the basis of version presented by eyewitnesses at the scene of offence. More particularly, reference is made to the evidence of Gaddameedi Vijay Kumar, Myatari Bhagyalakshmi, Myatari Venkatanna and Peddinti Kurmanna, who have allegedly broke opened the door and brought down the victim from the ceiling and laid her down. Therefore, offences under Section 306 and 498-A of IPC are only made out.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 argued that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court and he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between Dr. Sr. Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala 2, wherein it is held that mere likelihood of suspicion cannot be the reason to charge a person for an offence. Further, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu3, is relied upon wherein it is held that the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of 2 (2018) 18 SCC 292 3 2024 Legal Eagle 778 5 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 Cr.P.C. is limited. The said power can be exercised only when the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous or there is non-compliance of provision of law or finding of the trial Court is based on no evidence or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. Further, reference is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between P.Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh4, wherein it is held that Section 216 of Cr.P.C. emphasizes to alter or add any charge at any point of time before the judgment is pronounced. However, the said power is vested in the Court and is exclusive to the Court and there is no right for any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right.
9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed copies of FIR in Cr.No.24 of 2017 along with complaint, 161 Cr.P.C. statements of L.Ws.1 to 11, crime details form, inquest panchanama and final opinion given by the medical officer. In 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the villagers of the victim, it is clearly stated that there was a quarrel between the victim and respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.3 i.e., father-in-law of the victim started screaming, when the victim bolted herself in the room. Then, Gaddameedi Vijay Kumar, Myatari Bhagyalakshmi, Myatari 4 (2017) 3 SCC 347 6 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 Venkatanna and Peddinti Kurmanna have broke opened the door with pickaxe and brought her down from the ceiling fan to which she had hanged herself. The statements of eyewitnesses clearly show that the victim herself went into the room and hanged herself with saree to the ceiling fan. The inquest report also shows that the victim had committed suicide by hanging herself with saree to the ceiling fan.
10. Lastly, the final opinion given by the Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, District Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, shows that the victim died due to mechanical asphyxia due to partial hanging causing cardio-respiratory arrest. The final opinion issued by the Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, District Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, clearly shows that the victim suffered partial hanging and such partial hanging led to cardio-respiratory arrest. While so, the only document relied upon by the revision petitioner is the postmortem examination report, which shows that hyoid bone with surrounding soft tissue is present, hyoid bone is intact, joint between the body and neck are not ossified mobile.
11. Upon perusing the entire evidence on record, it is to be noted that the persons, who have actually tried to rescue the victim have unanimously deposed in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements that upon hearing screams of respondent No.3 all of them approached the room in which the victim 7 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 locked and hanged herself. They broke opened the door with pickaxe and brought her down from the ceiling and laid her down. The medical evidence in itself cannot be basis to allege murder, when the eyewitnesses have stated that the victim has locked herself in a room and committed suicide. The medical evidence is an important piece of evidence. However, when there is contradiction between medical evidence and eyewitnesses, importance prima facie has to be given to the evidence of eyewitnesses and not medical opinion.
12. In the instant case, the medical opinion merely shows that hyoid bone is intact. Such a situation probably arose due to attempt to save the victim immediately when she tried to hang herself. The only time lost was the time when the neighbours approached her room and broke opened the door with pickaxe. The probability of fracture in hanging is about 21% that too in case of complete hanging. In the instant case, the medical report shows that there is partial hanging as the neighbours have brought down the victim from the saree with which she hanged herself. When there is eyewitness account about the victim locking herself in the room and using saree to hang herself and it is deposed by the neighbours in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements, who are no way interested in the dispute between the family 8 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 members of the victim and respondent No.2, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
13. The quarrels if any about additional dowry were already settled in the year 2011 and no fresh instances for additional dowry demands are made out, hence, there are no grounds to frame charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Further, the 161 Cr.P.C. statements show that there were quarrels between victim and respondent No.2 as there were no children and respondent No.2 was asking permission to have second marriage. Such a situation does not give rise to framing of charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, instead amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC. The accused are already charged under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court for dismissing the petition for addition of offences under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence, the present revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 19.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 in S.C.No.69 of 2022 on 9 RY,J CRLRC_450_2025 the file of trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 12.09.2025 GVR 10