Telangana High Court
Mogulla Parsharam , Parsharamulu vs The State Of Telangana on 21 May, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2023 in Sessions Case No.407 of 2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
2. We have heard Mr. P. Prabhaker Reddy, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. M.Ramchandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. In the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was convicted and sentenced as follows:
For the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ("DP Act"), the accused was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.15,000/-, with a default sentence of six months' simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 4 of the DP Act, the accused received one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. Additionally, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment.
2 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
4.(a). The prosecution's case, in summary, is as follows: The accused married the elder daughter of the de facto complainant/PW-1. At the time of marriage, a dowry comprising Rs.2 lakhs in cash, five tolas of gold, and various household articles was presented. The couple initially enjoyed a harmonious married life and had two daughters. However, over time, the accused began to harass his wife, demanding additional dowry.
(b). In response to this harassment, PW-1, accompanied by community elders, persuaded the accused to desist and managed to arrange a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs. Despite this, about a week later, on 01.08.2018, the deceased informed her father/PW-1 that the accused had resumed his demands for an additional Rs.2 lakhs in dowry. She reported that, while intoxicated, the accused had threatened to kill her and physically assaulted her.
(c). On 02.08.2018, PW-1 and the elders hurried to the accused's village, Kishtaraopalli, and convened a panchayat meeting. During this gathering, the accused demanded another Rs.1 lakh to clear his debts. PW-1 promised to pay this amount after selling his crop and pleaded with the accused not to harass his daughter further.
(d). Tragically, as reported by a neighbor/PW-4, on the evening of 14.08.2018, while the deceased was alone at home, the accused struck her on the head with a pestle. Hearing her cries, PW-4 rushed to the 3 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 scene, but the accused fled upon seeing him. PW-4 found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and immediately informed PW-1 by phone. PW-1 and PW-4 rushed to the house, where they discovered the deceased's body with a fatal head injury. Subsequently, PW-1 filed a police report/Ex.P-1, and after due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to 16 and submitted Exhibits P-1 to P-25 and Material Objects 1 to 7. In his defence, the accused denied the incriminating evidence during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but did not present any specific evidence. However, during the cross-examination of PWs.6 and 7, portions of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-3.
6. Upon reviewing the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the giving of dowry and the subsequent demands for additional dowry were substantiated by the testimonies of family members/PWs.1 to 3 and panchayat elders/PWs.6 and 7. Furthermore, the evidence from PWs.1, 2, 6, and 7 established the cruelty inflicted by the accused in connection with these dowry demands. Medical evidence confirmed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with being struck by a pestle/M.O.3. Consequently, the accused was convicted under 4 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and Section 302 of the IPC, and sentenced accordingly.
7.(a). The defence counsel vigorously argued that the trial Court failed to recognize the lack of legally admissible evidence presented by the prosecution. The defence contended that the prosecution did not establish the accused's presence at the scene at the relevant time, and that the testimony of the neighbor/PW-4 was inconsistent with the prosecution's case. Additionally, several key witnesses-including PW-1 (the father), PW-2 (the sister), PW-4 (the neighbour), PWs.9 and 10 (scene observation panchayatdars), and PWs.11 and 12 (confession panchayatdars) were declared hostile, as they varied with the prosecution's narrative. The defence argued that, under these circumstances, it would be unreasonable to place the burden on the accused to explain the incident, especially in the absence of direct evidence. The defence further asserted that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not conclusively established to exclude the possibility of the accused's innocence, and thus, the accused should have been acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt.
(b). Moreover, the defence maintained that neither the initial presentation of dowry nor the subsequent demands and alleged harassment were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The oral testimony of witnesses, according to the defence, should not have been solely relied 5 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 upon to establish these facts. The defence also pointed out that, according to PW-1, the promised amounts were either paid or would be paid after the sale of crops, making continued harassment or violence against the deceased implausible. The recovery of blood-stained clothes was also contested, as it was argued that such stains could have occurred while the deceased was being transported to the hospital, rendering any inference based on this evidence unjustified.
(c). Furthermore, the defence highlighted inconsistencies regarding the timeline of police involvement, noting that evidence suggested police were present at the scene on 14.08.2018, yet the official report/Ex.P-1 was only filed on 15.08.2018, indicating possible suppression of facts. Finally, the defence argued that findings from the Forensic Science Laboratory report/Ex.P-25 were not specifically put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.
(d). In support of the pleadings learned counsel for the accused cited the authorities : (i) In Nizam and Another v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 1 SCC 550], (ii) In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 4 SCC 715],
(iii) In Ashok v. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 4 SCC 393], (iv) In Prakash v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 12 SCC 133], (v) In Siva v. State, Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station [2022 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 113], (vi) In Tara Singh v. State [AIR 1951 SC 441].
6 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
8.(a). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that, excluding the differed aspects, the testimonies of the family members/PWs.1 to 3 and mediators/PWs.6 and 7 clearly established both the circumstances surrounding the case and the persistent demands for additional dowry by the accused, as well as the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased in pursuit of these demands. Although the neighbor/PW-4 later retracted his earlier statement regarding the accused's presence at the scene, it remains undisputed that he witnessed the deceased immediately after the incident.
(b). Furthermore, the Prosecutor contended that the accused failed to provide any explanation regarding the events at the relevant time, despite the burden resting on him under Sections 101 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. These factors, the Prosecutor submitted, collectively establish the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused.
(c). Additionally, the injuries documented in the post-mortem examination report/Ex.P-15 conclusively prove the homicidal death and there is no one other than the accused who can account for these circumstances. The Prosecutor also pointed out that the accused admitted his guilt in his statement of admission/Ex.P-22.
7 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
(d). In light of these considerations, he maintained that the trial Court rightly evaluated the evidence and, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the accused, correctly found him guilty based on the prosecution's case. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.
10. In the given submissions, the factor emerge for determination is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused under Sections 3, 4 of the DP Act and Section 302 of the IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
11. The evidence presented by the father of the deceased/de facto complainant/PW-1, the deceased's younger sister/PW-2, a relative of PW-1/PW-3, a neighbor/PW-4, the photographer/PW-5, the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest/PW-13, the doctor who performed the autopsy/PW-14, and the investigating officer/PW-16, - when considered alongside the inquest report/Ex.P-7 and the post-mortem examination report/Ex.P-15 - collectively establish that Kavitha, the daughter of PW-1, died a homicidal death on 14.08.2018 in the accused's house in Kistaraopalli village.
8 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
12. It is undisputed that the accused and the deceased were married and living together at the location where the incident occurred.
13. Regarding the payment and subsequent demand for additional dowry, as well as the accused's conduct to enforce such demands, these facts have been consistently testified to by the family members/PWs.1 to 3 and the mediators/PWs.6 and 7 who participated in the panchayat.
14. It is a well-established legal principle that even if a witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, their testimony shall not be disregarded on that count alone. The Court is endowed to carefully scrutinize the facts deposed and, assess whether the witness has been thoroughly discredited, and may consider any portion of the evidence that remains unshaken, corroborated and deemed reliable. Therefore, credible segments of such testimony may still be relied upon.
15. Applying this principle, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 has been carefully evaluated. Their accounts regarding the payment of Rs.2 lakhs in cash, five tolas of gold, and household articles as dowry at the time of marriage, the subsequent demand and payment of an additional Rs.5 lakhs, and further demands for Rs.2 lakhs - including the matter being brought before community elders and PW-1's undertaking to pay after selling the harvest of crop - are all consistent with the initial information provided in Ex.P-1.
9 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
16. Additionally, PWs.6 and 7 corroborated the presentation of dowry, their accompanying PW-1 to the accused's place and the demand of the accused for additional dowry in their presence, and PW-1's promise to pay amount after the harvest. Cross-examination of these witnesses yielded no substantial contradictions, and their testimony remains consistent with that of PWs.1 to 3.
17. Thus, the facts regarding the demand of dowry and having no other go satisfying the demand to the large extent by the father of the deceased/PW1 and further making promise to meet the demand are firmly established. Therefore this bench is of considered view that, the prosecution has successfully proven the essential elements of the acts of demand and receiving the dowry by the accused. In effect, the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act stands established and in the facts and circumstances, the sentence recorded in the impugned judgment is found reasonable.
18. In this context, it is pertinent to note that, though the cruelty meted by the accused against the deceased for additional dowry has been referred by the witnesses, as the trial Court had acquitted the accused under Section 304-B of IPC and this conclusion remained unchallenged by the prosecution and this being the accused's appeal, the aspect as to cruelty has to be deserted.
10 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
19. In regard to the incident proper dated 14.08.2018, the prosecution primarily presented the evidence of PW4, a neighbor, as well as the circumstances surrounding the recovery of blood-stained clothing from the accused and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report confirming the presence of blood stains on the clothing seized from the accused.
20. The Apex Court in catena of judgments consistently held that, when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.(See. Sharad Birdichand Sarde Vs. State of Maharastra : (1984) 4 SCC 116 ; and Ballu and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 SCC Online 481) 11 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
21. PW4 testified that the incident/death had occurred when a wooden beam fell on the head of the deceased, and explicitly stated that the accused was not present at that time. PW4 further explained that, upon being informed of the incident, the accused arrived and transported the deceased to the Karimnagar hospital. Notably, the prosecution declared PW4 hostile, and despite cross-examination, nothing substantial was elicited in support of the prosecution's case.
22. As such, the prosecution's evidence of PW4 fails to establish the presence of the accused at the scene during the relevant time. Significantly, both the PW4's testimony and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC are indicating that other family members are also residing in the house, yet the investigating agency did not care to examine these individuals and this lapse remains unexplained.
23. Another important circumstance implicating the accused is the seizure of blood-stained clothing at his instance. The investigating officer/PW16 deposed that the accused's clothing/MO6 and MO7 were seized as documented in the seizure report/Ex P23. According to PW16, the seized wooden pestle from the scene and clothing were sent to the FSL for examination. The FSL report/Ex P25 confirmed that the clothing/MO6 and MO7 and pestle/MO3 bore human blood stains of blood group 'A'.
12 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023
24. However, the mediators for the seizure of the wooden pestle and clothing the witnesses/PW9, PW10, PW11, and PW12 did not support the prosecution's version, which slightly favours the accused. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to disregard the testimony of the investigating officer/PW16 solely on this ground.
25. According to the FSL report/Ex P25, the material objects reached the FSL on 10.09.2018, whereas the investigating officer (PW16) stated that the accused surrendered on 17.08.2018, made an admission, and led the police to his house where his clothing/MOs 6 and 7 were seized. This timeline is giving rise to concerns about the chain of custody of the material objects/MOs 3, 6 and 7 during this period.
26. Furthermore, to link the blood stains on the clothing to the incident, it is essential to establish that the blood group of the deceased was 'A'. Although the FSL report found blood group 'A' on the material objects, the investigating agency inexplicably failed to collect evidence confirming that the deceased's blood group was also 'A'.
27. The accused also challenged the FSL findings, particularly the assertion that the clothing seized from him contained human blood of group 'A', and argued that this evidence should not be used to convict him as that fact was not confronted to the accused in Section 313 CrPC examination. On perusal of the Section 313 CrPC examination record, in 13 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 the related question the FSL report was referenced, but as pointed out by the defence, the incriminating finding of human blood stains on the clothing of the accused was not put to him. It is a settled principle that incriminating material not put to the accused cannot be used for conviction.
28. In similar situation Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash v. State of Karnataka : (2014) 12 SCC 133; while addressing the evidentiary value of blood-stained clothes recovered from the accused. It observed that since millions may share the same blood group, the mere presence of matching blood stains is insufficient unless supported by detailed serological analysis. The Court, citing Tara Singh v. State: AIR 1951 SC 441; also held that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain any incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; failure to do so renders such evidence inadmissible against him.
29. In Siva v. State, Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station:
2022 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 113; the Madras High Court reiterated that, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, simply matching the blood group is not enough to establish guilt without comprehensive serological comparison, since many people may share the same blood group.
30. In this position, as this is a first appeal, so far as the FSL finding, this Court may further examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC or 14 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 may relegate the matter to the trial Court for examination. However, in the absence of evidence establishing that the deceased's blood group was 'A', it would be implausible to connect the accused to the incident solely based on the FSL report. Collectively, these circumstances fail to provide compelling evidence against the accused and leave ample room for reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
31. In the absence of prima facie evidence proving that the accused was at the scene during the relevant time, merely on the ground that the accused is also residing in the same house, shifting the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not justify.
32. In Nizam and Another v. State of Rajasthan:(2016) 1 SCC 550; the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts to the accused only if the prosecution establishes, through clear and definite evidence, that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.
33. That apart, lack of defence evidence supporting the alibi pleaded by the accused that he was engaged elsewhere on auto hire-does not alter this conclusion. Furthermore, as per PW4, the accused arrived and shifted the deceased to the hospital upon being informed of the incident. PW5's testimony reveals that when he arrived, the deceased's body was 15 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 still at the scene, a fact corroborated by photograph/Ex P5. Even if the accused was not involved, passing of information about the incident by the family member or PW4 or the police can be presumed. Upon knowing about the incident, in natural conduct the accused should have reached home and the police. However, no such effort has been pleaded and as per the prosecution, the accused remained at large until his surrender. While this conduct may arouse suspicion, as human reactions vary, it would be unjust to base a conviction solely on this behavior without clinching evidence of the accused's presence or involvement in the occurrence.
34. Accordingly, the evidence on record falls short of establishing the presence of the accused at the scene, let alone his involvement in the offence. For these reasons the prosecution's case is fraught with reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is liable to be set aside.
35. In the result, This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed; the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC and to this end conviction and sentence are set aside. He is, however, found guilty of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded in the impugned 16 PSK,J & NTR,J CRLA_422_2023 judgment against the appellant/accused for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act are confirmed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date:21-05-2025 ccm