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
[ad_1]
Source link