:: Page No.1 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
SECUNDERABAD
Present: C.V.S.Sai Bhupathi, VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, FAC Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Secunderabad
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
SESSIONS CASE No.139 of 2021
(PRC.No.73 of 2020 on the file of XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad)
Committed by : Sri K.Venkatesh XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Secunderabad.
Crime No.& Police Station : Cr.No.99 of 2020 Police Station Trimulgherry
Name of the Complainant : Assistant Commissioner of Police, Begumpet division Name and Description of the accused :
1) Benny Andrew, S/o. Benny, age: 29 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Flat no. 302, Vijaya Residency, Vanitha Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.
2) Smt. Rubina, W/o. Benny, age: 59 years, Occ: House Wife, Caste: OC (Roman Catholic), R/o. H.No. 3-17-38/C, ChinnaKamela,Trimulgherry, :: Page No.2 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
Secunderabad.
3)Benny Anthony S/o. Benny, age: 31 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Caste: OC (Roman Catholic), R/o. Plot no. 05, Gollaguda Kaman, Subash Nagar, Alwal, Secunderabad. Permanent Address H.No. 3-17-38/C, Chinna Kamela, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.
4)Smt.Sneha PoddurW/o. Benny Anthony, age: 27 years, Occ: BPO Tele Caller, R/o. Plot no. 05, Gollaguda Kaman, Subash Nagar, Alwal, Secunderabad. Permanent Address: H.No. 6-10-115/2/G- 2, Vinayak Nagar, Bala Nagar, Medchal.
5)Smt.Solochana W/o. P.M. Suman, age: 37 years, Occ: Private Employee, Caste: OC (Roman Catholic) R/o. H.No. 3-17-111/ C,ChinnaKamela,Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.
Prosecution conducted by : Sri R.Upender, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by : Sri Krishna Murthy and D.Pavani counsel for the accused
Offence under Sec.:304-B r/w.34 IPC
Plea of Accused:Not guilty
Finding of the Court: Found Not guilty
Result: A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.304 r/w.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO2 shall be given to PW1 after the expiry of appeal time.
:: Page No.3 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
J U D G M E N T
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Begumpet division, Hyderabad has laid charge sheet in Cr.No.99/2020 u/Sec.304(B) r/w.34 IPC of P.S.
Trimulgherry, Hyderabad against the A1 to A5 alleging that the accused are liable to be punished for the said offence.
2a) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 18.6.2020 at 15.00 hours PW1 reported that she has two daughters and one son and her elder daughter Priyanka developed acquaintance with
Benny Andrew and they developed their friendship into love and did love marriage on 3.2.2020 at Arya Samaj, Bowenpally and that on the day of marriage, Benny Andrew’s mother by name Rubina without seeing her daughter’s face asked for dowry and later her mother-in-law Rubina used to abuse her daughter in filthy language for petty issues and during lock down her daughter Priyanka informed PW1 that they were facing trouble for their daily needs and on that she gave one month ration to her daughter and recently her daughter and son-in-law got separated from their family and were residing at flat No.302, Vijaya Lakshmi Residence, Vanitha Enclave,
Trimulgherry and because of separation PW1 purchased furniture and other house hold items and gave to her daughter and every time her daughter’s mother-in-law compared her daughter with her elder daughter-in-law regarding her beauty and dowry which she brought 4 lakhs and abused her son Andrew in front of her daughter and said that she was not fair and not brought dowry and how he married her and that even Rubina’s elder son
Anthony, her elder daughter-in-law Sneha, her sister Sulochana harassed her :: Page No.4 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
daughter with words and from few days her son-in-law Benny Andrew was regularly talking to his ex-lover Shivani over phone and maintained illegal contact with her and tortured her daughter physically and mentally and that on 18.6.2020 at about 6.37 hours her daughter called her through phone and informed that son-in-law Benny Andrew beat her and on that she asked her that why did he beat and she replied that she asked her husband that why he was talking to her Ex-lover Shivani and due to that he beat her and left house on his bike and immediately the complainant said that she along with her son was coming to her house and from the past one week her son-in-law Benny
Andrew was going for night duty and due to that the complainant’s husband
Peter Paul, who was previously met with an accident and unable to walk, was staying in her daughter’s house and later on the same day at about 8.50 hours in her daughter’s phone, one phone number, which was saved as
Rahul Andrew’s friend to that number’s whatsapp status she messaged that ‘she was hanging herself’ and that later on at about 9.40 hours her son-in-law
Benny Andrew informed the complainant through phone that her daughter was hanged herself to the ceiling fan with a purple colour saree in her bed room by locking it and that Benny Andrew along with apartment watchman by name, Sreenivas broke the door and got down her and immediately shifted to Nirmala Nursing home, Trimulgherry and there the duty doctor declared that while undergoing treatment she died and requested to take necessary action.
b)On the receipt of the complaint, PW1 registered a case in
Cr.No.99/2020 u/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w.34 IPC and took up investigation, along with stff rushed to Nirmala Nursing home and shifted the dead body of the deceased, visited the scene of offence at flat no.302, Vijay Residency, Vanitha
Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, got photographed, secured the :: Page No.5 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
presence of PW4 and PW5, conducted observation panchanama, drafted rough sketch, seized purple colour saree, mobile phone of the deceased ‘Asus’ make, marriage certificate vide ref.No.4024/BKXXXXXIII/03/02/2020 issued by ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad and marriage photos in the presence of panchas and their signed chits were tagged to them. The accused party evaded from their residences and the team had been deputed for apprehension of the accused persons. PW7 examined PW1 and recorded her statement and also examined PW2, LW2/Peter Paul, LW4/
Kum.Mounika, LW5/Pithani Srinivas and recorded their statements.
c)Since the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, PW7 addressed letter to RDO, Secunderabad and in turn RDO directed LW11/ Shabana Bee,
Tahsildar, Secunderabad and she visited Gandhi Hospital Mortuary and held inquest over the body of deceased on 19.6.2020 between 12.00 hours to 14.00 hours in the presence of PW6 and LW10/ J.Sai Prasad. Later the dead body was subjected to PME and LW12/ G.Mhaneder conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was "hanging", vide PME No. 1824/2020. LW11/
Smt.Shabana Bee, Tahsildar recorded the statement of PW1 and as per her statement, PW7 altered the Section from Sec.498-A, 306 IPC r/w. 34 IPC to
Sec. 304-B IPC r/w.Sec. 34 IPC and prepared section alteration memo and handed over case file to PW8 for further investigation. On 19.06.2020 PW8 took up further investigation, re-examined PW1, PW2, LW2/ Peter Paul, LW4/
Kum. Mounika, LW5/ Pithani Srinivas, but not recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, recorded the statement of PW3. On 22.06.2020 at 11:00 hours, A1 to A5 were taken to custody at Chinna Kamela,
Trimulgherry by PW7 and were brought to Police Station and were produced
before PW8. PW8 arrested the accused at 11.30 hours and produced them
:: Page No.6 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
before the court. After completion of the investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet
alleging that the A1 to A5 are liable to be punished for the offence u/Sec.304 r/w.34 of IPC.
c)Basing upon the material available on record, the learned Committal Court took the case on file and took cognizance against A1 to A5 for the offence punishable u/Sec.304(B) r/w.34 of IPC and registered the case as
PRC.No.73/2020. On the appearance of the accused No.1 to 5, copies of documents and charge sheet were furnished to the accused in strict compliance u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence u/Sec.304(B) IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the
Sessions Division u/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
3) Basing on the material available on record, the Honourable Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was pleased to take the case on file u/Sec.304(B)
r/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A5 and registered the case as SC.139/2021 and made over to this Court for trial and disposal.
4) On the receipt of the case record and on hearing the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused No.1 to 5, the accused were examined, charger framed u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. against A1 to A5 for the offence u/Sec.304(B) r/w.34 IPC, read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The A1 to A5 were defended by their advocate.
5) Out of 17 witnesses cited, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got :: Page No.7 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
marked Exs.P1 to P9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up LW10/
J.Sai Prasad. Since LW5/ Pithani Srinivas died his evidence was closed. The accused No.3 was examined as DW1 and accused No.4 was examined as
DW2 and got marked Ex.D1 to D3.
6) After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 5 were examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused No.1 to 5 denied the evidence and further stated that they have defence evidence. The learned counsel for accused has filed written arguments.
7)Heard both side arguments.
8)Now the point for determination is
Whether the prosecution has proved the case against A1 to A5 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec.304(B) r/w.34 OF
IPC?
POINT:
9)The conspectus of the case of the prosecution is that PW1 has two daughters and one son and her elder daughter was Priyanka and the deceased Priyanka fell in love with A1 while working in Megus Call Centre,
Begumpet, Secunderabad and initially the PW1 and her family refused for their marriage, as the mother of A1 demanded dowry without seeing her face and the deceased and A1 married on 3.2.2020 in Arya Samaj,
Bowenpally, Secunderabad in the presence of the family members of accused and since the first day, the A2, who is the mother of A1, started harassing the deceased for dowry and also compared her with her elder daughter in law on :: Page No.8 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
her physical appearance and dowry and due to which the deceased and A1 got separated and were living in flat No.302, Vijay Laxmi Residency, Vanitha
Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad and the deceased learnt that A1 was regularly talking to his Ex-lover Shivani over phone and maintained illicit relationship with her and when the deceased questioned A1, he started beating her mercilessly and he went to her regular night duty and came to residence in the early hours on 18.06.2020 and again the deceased questioned A1 about the illicit relationship, he slapped her and left the house at 6.00 hours and at about 6.37 hours, the deceased informed PW1 about the same and later on the same day at about 8.50 hours, the deceased kept a Whatsapp status ‘one hanging photo downloaded from net’ and made privacy settings in Whatsapp application so that, only PW3 can view the status and unfortunately, PW3 did not see the status before her death and when the A1 returned to residence, he found that the main door was locked from inside and on suspicion, A1 along with LW5/ Pithani Srinivas broke open the door of the house and went inside the room and found the deceased was hanging herself to a ceiling fan with purple colour saree at her bedroom by bolting the main door from inside and immediately they brought her down and shifted to Nirmala Nursing Home, Trimulgherry and there the duty doctor declared that while undergoing treatment she died and due to immense and unbearable physical/mental harassment by A1 and his family for want of additional dowry, the deceased bolted the main door from inside and committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan on 18.6.2020.
10)PW1, who is said to be the defacto complainant and the mother of the deceased Priyanka, deposed that the deceased Priyanka and A1 were in love for three years and her daughter had informed her about their love and the :: Page No.9 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
parents of A1 and others came to their house for marriage proposal and without seeing their daughter, they had demanded four lakhs rupees towards dowry and her son i.e. PW2 got angry and told them that why were asking dowry without seeing their daughter and then the parents of A1 had left the house and later her daughter and A1 got married at Arya Samaj and her daughter started residing with A1 and his family and her daughter had informed her that the mother of A1 was harassing her for dowry and also used to say that she was black in colour and her other daughter-in-law was fair in complex and she used to harass her daughter on petty issues and later during lock down period, Priyanka and A1 started residing separately and she had also arranged one month provisions and also gave all household articles to them for setting up separate family and later her daughter had informed him that A1 again started talking with his Ex-girl friend Shivani and he used to demand money from her and he used to beat her and A1 used to attend night duty and her daughter used to attend morning duty as she was working in Colours.
11)PW2, who is the brother of the deceased Priyanka, deposed that PW1 is his mother and LW2/ Peter Paul is his father and LW4/ Mounika is his sister and deceased Priyanka was his sister and the marriage of Priyanka and A1 was performed on 8.2.2020 and it was a love marriage and their marriage was performed at Arya Samaj and the parents of A1 and others came to their house for marriage proposal and without seeing their sister, they had demanded four lakhs rupees towards dowry and he got angry and told them that why they were asking dowry without seeing their sister and then the parents of A1 had left the house and that later his sister and A1 got married at Arya Samaj and his sister started residing with A1 and his family and his :: Page No.10 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
sister had informed them that the mother of A1 was harassing her for dowry and also used to say that she was black in colour and her other daughter in law was fair in complexion and she used to harass his sister on petty issues and later during the lock down period Priyanka and A1 started residing separately and they had also arranged one month provisions and also gave all house-hold articles to them for setting up separate family and later his sister had informed them that A1 again started talking to his Ex-girl friend
Shivani and he used to demand money from her and he used to beat her and
A1 used to attend night duty and his sister used to attend morning duty as she was working in Colours.
12)The cross examination of PW1 revealed that she did not remember the name of sister of A1 and her daughter had informed that she was in love with
A1 for three years that too prior to the marriage and the marriage of her daughter was performed with A1 in the month of February 2020 and their family members had not attended to the marriage of A1 and deceased
Priyanka as they were not having knowledge about the marriage and the date of birth of Priyanka was on 23.1.1993 and the date of birth of her husband was on 1.4.1969 and her marriage was performed on 15.1.1992 and she is not having any other house and at present she is residing in a rented house which belongs to Narayana and that Narayana was having documents of her house ad she is having family book of Sun Maris Church and the name of
Priyanka was entered in their family book and admitted that her parents are
Hindus and she is residing in the house of Narayana since she was 15 years old and Priyanka resided along with her in the house of Narayana since her birth and Priyanka used to sleep with her before her marriage and admitted that her husband stayed with her daughter for some days at Vijay Lakshmi :: Page No.11 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
Apartment, Vanitha Enclave, Third floor at Trimulgherry and her husband used to start from their house at 7.00 p.m. to go to the house of Priyanka and Peter was not doing any work due to ill-health and accident and she worked as a receptionist in one hospital and previously her husband used to work in Air
Force department on temporary basis and she is not working since 3 years and she used to get salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and she also used to do real estate work and she knows the lock down period since March 2020 and
Priyanka was not in their house after her marriage and Priyanka and A1 quarrelled for setting a separate family and A1 and Priyanka came to their house on 20th May and left her house on 1st June and Peter stayed with her when Priyanka and A1 came to their house and she had purchased house hold articles to Priyanka on 1.6.2020 at Secunderabad area in Lakshmi
Narayana Steel shop and she was having purchase receipts with her.
13)The further evidence of PW1 revealed that on 18.6.2020 in the morning hours, her daughter login for her duty and when she called her she started saying that she would call again and her voice was in worry and then she had sent her son to see her daughter Priyanka and after some time, her son had called her and informed her that Priyanka was in hospital and then immediately she went to the hospital and found her daughter lying on the lap of A1 and on her enquiry the mother of A1 and others had informed her that
Priyanka had committed suicide by hanging and then she called police and lodged a complaint marked as Ex.P1.
14)The further evidence of PW2 is that on 18.6.2020 in the morning hours her mother asked him to go to the house of his sister, but she was not in the house and the public at the house of his sister had informed him that his :: Page No.12 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
sister was shifted to hospital and then he went to the hospital situated at
Trimulgherry and found his sister lying on the lap of A1 in the car and on their enquiry, the mother of A1 and others had informed him that Priyanka had committed suicide by hanging and then he called his mother to come to hospital and then his mother came to hospital.
15)The cross examination of PW2 revealed that the name of the other sister is Mounika and she is unmarried and the name of his wife is Sireesha and his marriage was performed on 05.04.2017 and himself and Mounika used to stay in hostel while they were studying in school and he was in hostel till intermediate and Mounika used to stay in the hostel of St.Anns and he studied X class in K B School of Excellence situated at Trimulgherry and he used to come to the house in holidays and he went to the house of the deceased at about 7.00 A.M. and while he was on the way to the house of deceased, his mother called him and informed him that the deceased fell due to giddiness and then he went to the house of deceased and watchman had informed him that deceased was shifted to hospital and then he went to the hospital and found his sister in the car in unconscious and he tried to wake up his sister, but the mother in law of his sister had informed that deceased committed suicide and he called his mother after seeing the dead body of his sister in the car and he had not observed the exact time of calling his mother and his mother, his sister and his wife came to the hospital and at present he did not remember the name of the hospital, but it was situated opposite to bus stand of Trimulgherry and he was present when deceased and her husband established separate family and he had searched for rented house and at present he did not remember the name of the apartment, but deceased and her husband resided in Flat No.304 and further deposed that :: Page No.13 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
A1 had searched for a rented house and they had paid advance amount to the owner and himself, his mother, Mounika, his wife were present when the deceased and A1 established separate family in flat No.304 and the deceased and A1 stayed in flat No.304 for around 15 days and as his sister Priyanka already died, they had not shifted her to any other hospital and police had shifted the dead body of his sister to Gandhi hospital for post mortem and he was not present when police conducted inquest.
16)The PW1 has denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused in her cross examination that Priyanka was not her daughter and
Peter is not her husband. The PW1 has also denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused in her cross examination that Priyanka used to sleep in the house of her paternal grand mother by name Violet and her husband used to start from their house at 9.30 p.m. and used to go to the house of Priyanka in drunken condition and used to reach to the house of
Priyanka at about 10.30 p.m. PW1 also deposed in her cross examination that she cannot say exact time of suicide of Priyanka and denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused in her cross examination that
Priyanka was in her house after her marriage during the lock down period and herself, Priyanka and A1 used to consume liquor in their house and Priyanka used to discuss about their friends in their presence and at that time Priyanka had informed A1 about her previous relationship with PW3 and she used to sell toddy and liquor illegally during lock down period.
17)PW1 admitted in her cross examination that her husband was in the house of her daughter at the time of the incident and also deposed that her husband was in the washroom at the time of the incident and admitted that :: Page No.14 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
her husband used to return to their house in between 6.00 to 7.00 A.M. from the house of Priyanka and further admitted that her husband had not returned from the house of Priyanka in the morning on the date of the incident and also deposed that her daughter used to wear saree and dress and she had purchased purple sarees to her daughter and after the death of
Priyanka, she had brought back her belongings to her house and she started from house from 9.45 A.M. to go to Priyanka along with her husband and she did not remember the time when she reached the hospital and at present she did not remember the name of the hospital and she does not know how her husband had not informed the incident to the police.
18)The PW1 has not denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused in her cross examination that at the time she went to the hospital, Priyanka was alive and without taking her to the Government hospital for treatment, she started beating A1 and also beat A2 and the persons at the hospital had called police and she had also bitten the thigh of
A5 and PW2 had damaged the car of the accused and since childhood
Priyanka was suffering from disease of fainting and Priyanka suffered from depression and the same was informed A4 by Priyanka and Priyanka became unconscious at the house of A4 once at the time of watching TV and A4 shifted her to the hospital and doctor had advised to shift her to another hospital and Priyanka and A4 used to go to office on one scooter and she used to take the entire salary of Priyanka and A1, A4 and witnesses had tried to save Priyanka and the offence was taken place in the presence of her husband and as per their plan Peter was at the house of the accused on the date of the incident and she had instructed her husband to not to come to the hospital.
:: Page No.15 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
19)PW1 deposed in her cross examination that cross which was presented
A2 at the time of the marriage was buried with Priyanka and police had seized the saree with which was hanged by the Priyanka and police had shifted Priyanka to the Government hospital and herself along with her family members went to the Government hospital and Peter had not come along with them as he suffered from fracture injury in his neck and Priyanka was shifted in a private van to the Government hospital, but not in a police van and she does not know who is Mahesh and she does not know whether
Mahesh is ex-lover of Priyanka or not and they had live in relationship for six months.
20)Initially PW2 did not name the persons in the public from whom he came to know that Priyanka was shifted to hospital. Whereas, in his cross examination he deposed that the watchman informed that Priyanka was shifted to the hospital. It is admitted fact that the father of the deceased
Priyanka by name, Peter, who is LW2, was present at the house of the
Priyanka at the time of the incident and he did not return from the house of
Priyanka in the morning on the date of the incident. The prosecution did not examine the father of the deceased, who is cited as LW2/Peter Paul, and the reasons best known to the prosecution.
21)PW3, who is the circumstantial witness and said to be the common friend of the deceased and the accused, deposed that he knows the deceased
Priyanka and A1 and A1 and deceased Priyanka used to reside at
Chinnakamela area on rent and he gave one phone frame to deceased
Priyanka on her request and he does not know any disputes in between them.
:: Page No.16 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
22)The evidence of PW7, the investigating officer, is regarding the receiving Ex.P1 from PW1 on 18.6.2020 and registering a case in
Cr.No.99/2020 for the offence u/Sec.498A, 306 r/w.34 IPC basing on Ex.P1 and issuing Ex.P7 FIR and his proceeding to Nirmala Nursing home and shifted the dead body to Gandhi hospital and visiting the scene of offence, securing the presence of PW4 and PW5 and preparing the scene of offence panchanama and seizure of MO1 purple colour saree and MO2 cell phone from the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses, his examining and recording the statements of PW1 and PW2, LW2/ Peter Paul, LW5/ Pithani Srinivas, addressing letter to RDO to conduct inquest over the dead body basing on the statements of witnesses, as the death was caused within seven years of marriage and filing Ex.P8 section alteration memo before the court and conducting PME by LW12/ Dr.G. Mahender over the dead body of deceased and handing over CD file to PW8 for further investigation.
23)The cross examination of PW7 revealed that he had not retained A1,
A2 and husband of A2 in the police station till 21.6.2020 from 18.6.2020 and he had not seized car from A4 and not deposited the same before the court and Priyanka died at about 3.00 P.M. the complainant herself had mentioned in the complaint about the death of the Priyanka and admitted that the dead body was shifted to the hospital through PC.7183 for PME and he went to scene of offence in the after noon hours on the date of the incident.
24)The evidence of PW8, the another investigating officer, is regarding his receiving CD file from PW7 and his re-examining PW1, PW2, LW4/Mounika,
LW5/ Pithani Srinivas, his visiting the scene of offence and recording the :: Page No.17 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
statement of PW3, his effecting the arrest of A1 to A5 on 22.6.2020 and producing them before the court for Judicial Custody and his collecting Ex.P9 post mortem report of deceased from the hospital and filing charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation. The cross examination of PW8 revealed that he had not visited the scene of offence on the date of the incident and he does not know the exact time of the death of Priyanka, but she died on 18.6.2020 and he apprehended A1 to A5 at Trimulgherry.
25)PW4 and PW5, who are said to be the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, deposed that they know each other and in the year 2020 on one day in the morning hours police came to the scene of offence situated at Vanitha Enclave and obtained their signatures on some papers and nothing was seized by the police in their presence from the scene of offence. The signatures of PW4 and PW5 on the scene of offence panchanama were marked as Ex.P4 and P5.
26)PW4 and 5 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross examination that police conducted scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch and police had seized one purple colour saree, asus phone, marriage photos and marriage certificate issued by
Arya Samaj from the scene of offence. PW4 deposed in his cross examination that he had not seen the scene of offence. The prosecution could not elicit the reason for the hostility of PWs.4 and 5 against the accused. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
:: Page No.18 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
27) PW6, who is said to be the inquest panch witness, deposed that she knows LW10/ J.Sai Prasad and the deceased and that on 19.6.2020 police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Priyanka in their presence and Priyanka committed suicide by hanging . Ex.P6 inquest panchanama was marked through PW6. PW6 further deposed that LW10/ J.Sai Prasad also signed on Ex.P6 along with her. PW6 deposed in her cross examination that she knows PW1 since the date of her marriage and she does not know when the marriage of Priyanka was performed and she had seen the marks on the neck of Priyanka as she had committed suicide and she was wearing white colour clothes and she had seen the dead body of the deceased when she was in the ambulance.
28)A3 and A4, who are examined as DW1 and DW2, deposed that in support of their defence which they submitted to the court in Sec.313 Cr.P.C.
examination, they filed Xerox copies of rental agreement dt.1.6.2018 in between Sathya Prasad (Landlord and DW1 as a tenant) and letter of the
Auxilium Church, Mahendra Hills on 29.1.2025 and also extract of the Church
Book attested by father T.Anthony Reddy for attendance of Priyanka in the said Church on 16.1.2025 and also extract of family members dt.11.1.2008 on said Church vide Card No.28 and list of family members along with monthly contribution to the Church. Ex.D1 certificate issued by Auxillium
Church dt.29.1.2025, Ex.D2 extract of the Church were marked through DW1.
29)In the cross examination of DW1 and DW2, they admitted that the rental agreement under Ex.D3 pertains to the year 2018 and Ex.D1 and D2 pertains to the year 2005 and the deceased Priyanka was the wife of A1 and :: Page No.19 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
A1 and Priyanka married in the year 2020 at Arya Samaj, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad and they stayed at Chinnakamela in the house of A2 and that after Corona lock down, they were shifted to Vijay Lakshmi Residency,
Vanitha Enclave. DW1 further deposed in his cross examination that he does not know whether PW1 had provided household articles to the deceased.
30)The death of the deceased Priyanka is not in dispute. Now the question for consideration of this court is whether any demand of dowry was made by the accused and whether the deceased was subjected to harassment soon
before her death by the accused. As per the version of the witnesses except
A2 no demand of dowry was made by the A1, A3 to A5 at the time of marriage and even no evidence regarding the giving of dowry to the accused
No.1 to 5 at the time of marriage. As per the version of PW1 and 2 that the deceased informed them that A2 harassed the deceased for dowry and A1 used to demand the deceased for dowry and beat her and A2 used to say to deceased that she was black in colour and other daughter in law was fair in complex and she used to harass the deceased on petty issues and A1 used to talk to his ex-girl friend Shivani and A1 used to attend night duty and the deceased used to attend morning duty. The version of the PWs.1 and 2 is general statement and from their version it is not clear as to what really happened with the deceased at the matrimonial house. There is no evidence regarding giving complaint to police regarding the alleged harassment of the accused towards the deceased.
31)The prosecution did not examine the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, to prove the alleged physical harassment if any and the reasons best known to the prosecution.
:: Page No.20 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
32) In Rakesh Adwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station City
Kotwali in Cr.A.No.228/2015 dt.1.10.2020, Hon’ble the High Court of
Chhattisgarh held that ‘For establishing the charges under Section 304-B IPC, it has to be proved that cruelty or harass-ment is done in connection with demand of dowry and such cruelty is meted out to the deceased soon before her death. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry. Mere demand is not sufficient to establish the charges under Section 304B IPC. In the present case, father of the deceased himself admitted that no complaint was made by the appellant or his relatives regarding dowry after marriage. No one deposed before the trial Court as to what really happened with the deceased on the date of incident or prior to the date of incident. No evidence of physical violence against the de-ceased is established by the medical evidence. Statement of the witnesses is based on information given by to them by the deceased but the same is not substantive piece of evidence because it is hear-say in nature. No one met the deceased prior to the incident to establish that the steps taken by the deceased was as a result of the constant harassment by the appellant’.
33)For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the evidence placed by the prosecution has not established the charges levelled against the accused to fasten the liability of accused to the alleged offence. The prosecution has not proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt. A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.304(B) r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.
:: Page No.21 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
34)In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.304 r/w.34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of
Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. MO1 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO2 shall be given to PW1 after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of September 2025.
IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. FAC. Spl. Judge for SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1Smt.Latha, complainant/ mother of deceased PW2K.Rahul, son of PW1/ brother of deceased PW3George Rahul Renold, circumstantial witness PW4H. Richard, panch witness for scene of offence PW5A.Raju, panch witness for scene of offence PW6Smt.R.Vasantha, panch witness for inquest panchanama PW7K.Ravi Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, Trimulgherry, registered case PW8P. Naresh Reddy, then Asst Commissioner of Police, Begumpet division, Investigating officer Ex.P9 Post Mortem Examination Report.
:: Page No.22 of 22::
VIASJ-Dt.18.09.2025
SC139/2021
FOR DEFENCE:
DW1Anthony Benny DW2Sneha Poddar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3Signature of PW4 on rough sketch Ex.P4Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5Signature of PW5 on rough sketch Ex.P6Inquest panchanama Ex.P7First Information Report Ex.P8Section alteration memo Ex.P9Post Mortem Examination Report
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Certificate issued by Auxilium Church dt.29.1.20025
Ex.D2 Extract of the Church book attested by father T.Anthony Reddy for attendance of Priyanka on 16.1.2005
Ex.D3 Rental agreement dt.1.6.2018 between N.Sathya Prasad & B.Anthony
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
MO1Purple Colour Saree
MO2Asus make mobile phone
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. FAC. Spl. Judge for SCs & STs(POA) Act cum VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.