1Page 1 of 46 SC 397-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: AT
NALGONDA
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
01.Case No.SC. No. 397 of 2019
02.Crime No.Cr. No. 115 of 2017 of P.S. Nakrekal Police Station
03.Description of the Accused 1.KolanuSaiduluS/o personlate.Venkatesham, age: 28 years, Occ: Kirana Business, (Opp: G.P office, Thipparthy Road, Nakrekal), R/o H.No.15-119, Rahmath Nagar, Nakrekal.
2.KolanuChandrakalaW/o Venkattesham, age: 51 years, Occ: Business,R/oH.No.15-119, Rahamath Nagar, Nakrekal.
3.Kolanu Prameela W/o late.Yadagiri, age: 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Koyyalagudem (v) of Choutupppal
(m), presently residing at Rahmath Nagar, Nakrekal.
4.Pendam Lakshmi W/o Srinivasulu, age: 35 years, Occ: Petty business, R/o VT Colony, Nakrekal.
5.Gurram Manemma W/o Venkanna, age: 33 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o Nalgonda.
6.Chittiprolu Anitha W/o Shekar, age: 32 years, Occu: House-wife, R/o Cherlapally village of Nalgonda mandal.
7.Gurram Lalitha W/o Venkanna, age: 31 years, Occ; House-wife, R/o VT Colony, Nakrekal.
04.Date of offence19.04.2017
05.Date of Report19.04.2017
06.Date of arrest25.07.2017 : A.1 to A.3
07.Date of release08.08.2017 : A.1 to A.3 A.4 to A.7 got anticipatory bail vide Crl.MP No.1521/2017, dt:28.12.2017 on the file of Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge’s Court, Nalgonda.
08.Date of records committed to 28.06.2019 the Sessions Division.
09.Date of commencement of trial.08.03.2021
10.Date of close of trial02.11.2021
11.Date of Judgment08.11.2021
12.Explanation for delay: No delay.
2Page 2 of 46 SC 397-2019
13.Sentence or Order : In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 304-B IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, they are convicted U/S 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced as follows:
a)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of TEN YEARS for the offence punishable U/S 304-B IPC;
b)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS each for the offence punishable U/S 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; [Total fine Rs.10,000x3=Rs.30,000/-]. A.1 and A.2 are also found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , they are convicted U/S 235 (2) Cr.P.C and they are sentenced as follows:
c)A.1 and A.2 are further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of FIVE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [Total fine Rs.15,000x2=Rs.30,000/-].
d)All the term sentences shall run concurrently and all the default sentences shall run consecutively.
e)M.Os.1 to 5 as they are worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
f)A.1 to A.7 are found not guilty for the alternative charge punishable U/S 306 IPC; A.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act;
g)A.4 to A.7 are also found not guilty for the charge punishable U/S 304-B IPC and U/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
h)The bail bonds of A.4 to A.7 and the sureties shall stand cancelled after the statutory interval period subject to the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
i)Out of the total fine amount realized i.e., Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is awarded to PW.1-Danuka Shanthamma in order to meet the defraying expenses incurred in the prosecution under Section 357 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., payable to her, after expiry of the appeal time. It is needless to say that the accused are entitled to the statutory benefit provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C., and the remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 shall be given set-off for the term sentences. [Remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 : from 25.07.2017 to 08.08.2017].
A.1 to A.3 are also informed their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment before the Hon’ble High Court. A.1 to A.3 are also informed of their right to claim free-legal-aid in the event of the accused doesn’t possess necessary financial means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.
M VDigitally signed by M
V RAMESH
RAMESHDate: 2021.11.08 18:54:02 +0530
Principal Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda. To The Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
3Page 3 of 46 SC 397-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: AT
NALGONDA
Present: Mr. M.V.Ramesh
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Dated this the Monday, the 08th day of November, 2021
SESSIONS CASE No. 397 of 2019
(In PRC No.8 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nakrekal in Crime No. 115 of 2017 of Nakrekal Police Station for the offence punishable U/S.304-B IPC & U/Secs.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.7)
COMPLAINANT ACCUSED
State represented by the:1.Kolanu Saidulu S/o late.Venkatesham, age: 28 Sub-DivisionalPoliceyears, Occ: Kirana Business, (Opp: G.P office, Officer, Nalgonda. Thipparthy Road, Nakrekal), R/o H.No.15-119, Rahmath Nagar, Nakrekal.
2.Kolanu Chandrakala W/o Venkattesham, age: 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.15-119, Rahamath Nagar, Nakrekal.
3.Kolanu Prameela W/o late.Yadagiri, age: 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Koyyalagudem (v) of Choutupppal (m), presently residing at Rahmath Nagar, Nakrekal.
4.Pendam Lakshmi W/o Srinivasulu, age: 35 years, Occ: Petty business, R/o VT Colony, Nakrekal.
5.Gurram Manemma W/o Venkanna, age: 33 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o Nalgonda.
6.Chittiprolu Anitha W/o Shekar, age: 32 years, Occu: House-wife, R/o Cherlapally village of Nalgonda mandal.
7.Gurram Lalitha W/o Venkanna, age: 31 years, Occ; House-wife, R/o VT Colony, Nakrekal.
Prosecutionconducted:Accused are defended by Mr. S.R.Tagore, by Smt.K.V.Rajani, Public Advocate. Prosecutor, Smt.Sreevani, Addl. Public Prosecutor,and Mr.G.Jawaharlal, In-charge
Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State-Complainant. Nature of offences:304-B IPC : Dowry death or alternatively. 306 IPC : Abetment of suicide 3 & 4 of the Dowry Proh. Act: } Taking or abetting of any Dowry Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Sessions Judge :
A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence U/Ss.304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for the offence U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 to A.7 are found not guilty for the alternative charge punishable U/S 306 IPC; A.4 to A.7 are also found not guilty for the charge punishable U/S 304-B IPC and U/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4Page 4 of 46 SC 397-2019
SENTENCE OR ORDER:
In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 304-B IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, they are convicted U/S 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced as follows:
a)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of TEN YEARS for the offence punishable U/S 304-B IPC;
b)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS each for the offence punishable U/S 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; [Total fine Rs.10,000x3=Rs.30,000/-].
A.1 and A.2 are also found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , they are convicted U/S 235 (2) Cr.P.C and they are sentenced as follows:
c)A.1 and A.2 are further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of FIVE YEARS and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [Total fine Rs.15,000x2=Rs.30,000/-].
d)All the term sentences shall run concurrently and all the default sentences shall run consecutively.
e)M.Os.1 to 5 as they are worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
f)A.1 to A.7 are found not guilty for the alternative charge punishable U/S 306 IPC; A.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act;
g)A.4 to A.7 are also found not guilty for the charge punishable U/S 304- B IPC and U/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
h)The bail bonds of A.4 to A.7 and the sureties shall stand cancelled after the statutory interval period subject to the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
i)Out of the total fine amount realized i.e., Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is awarded to PW.1-Danuka Shanthamma in order to meet the defraying expenses incurred in the prosecution under Section 357 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., payable to her, after expiry of the appeal time.
It is needless to say that the accused are entitled to the statutory benefit provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C., and the remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 shall be given set-off for the term sentences. [Remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 : from 25.07.2017 to 08.08.2017].
A.1 to A.3 are also informed their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment before the Hon’ble High Court. A.1 to A.3 are also informed of their right to claim free-legal-aid in the event of the accused doesn’t possess necessary financial means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.
5Page 5 of 46 SC 397-2019
: J U D G M E N T :
CORPUS DELICTI (GIST OF THE OFFENCE) :
2.The Dejure-complainant-the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Nalgonda filed Final Report U/S 173 Cr.P.C., alleging that it is a case of
Dowry Death occurred on 19.04.2017 at 11:00 A.M at Rahmath Nagar,
Nakrekal village and mandal wherein one Kolanu Amala @ Deepthi, 22 years old, daughter of Danuku Shanthamma (PW.1) and late.Prakash of Akkenapally village of Narketpally mandal, committed suicide by hanging due to unbearable dowry harassment subjected by her husband-A.1, in-laws and sisters-in-law i.e., A.2 to A.7 on the pretext that she failed to fulfill their demand of additional dowry.
3.On the report given by PW.1 police have registered it as a case in Crime No.115/2017 U/S 304-B IPC & Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, police have took up investigation and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (PW.15) filed Final
Report against A.1 to A.7 stating that A.1 to A.7 are liable for the offences punishable U/S 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS :
4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nakrekal,
before whom the Final Report was filed Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
after observing the procedural wrangles under the Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda, as the offence punishable 6Page 6 of 46 SC 397-2019
U/S 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Division,
Nalgonda.
EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED & FRAMING OF CHARGES :
5. On appearance of the accused, on consideration of the entire material available on record, as it is not a fit case to discharge, charges for the offence punishable U/S.304-B or 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused framed and explained to them in Telugu language. To which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charges framed.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT :
6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as (15) witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and
M.O.1 to 5. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the Accused and no documents were got marked on their behalf.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED u/Sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.:
7.After completion of the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, A.1 to A.7 were examined under Section 313 (i) (b)
Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of the prosecution, A.1 to A.7 have denied the evidence and pleaded not guilty.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED :
8.The plea of A.1 to A.7 is one of total denial and that a false case was foisted against the A.1 to A.7 by PW.1 by planting the witnesses and material objects as the deceased Deepthi married A.1 against her will at the instance of her mother-PW.1, that Deepthi was 7Page 7 of 46 SC 397-2019 the lover of one Nani Upender, Deepthi’s engagement was over with the said Nani Upender and that PW.1 performed the marriage of
Deepthi with A.1 against to her will and wish. It is also canvassed that
Deepthi who was a PG Student due to inferiority complex of the status of A.1, she could not mingle with A.1 and that she committed suicide by hanging due to depression and that the accused never harassed
Deepthi demanding dowry.
9.It is also vehemently urged that A.4 to A.7 are residing with their respective families at Nakrekal, Nalgonda and Cherlapally villages, they never resided along with A.1 and A.2 and that they only tried to pacify the differences between A.1 and Deepthi. It is also one of the defences of the accused that there are material contradictions, inconsistencies and variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the neighbours and mediators for the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama turned hostile to the case, that the investigation conducted is not on correct lines and as such the accused are entitled to the said benefits of doubt and consequential acquittal.
10.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A.1 to A.7 beyond all reasonable doubts for the charges punishable U/S.304-B IPC or 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.7 in this Sessions Case?
2. To what sentence and compensation?
11.Before adverting to the ocular, documentary, and circumstantial evidence, apart from real evidence adduced by the 8Page 8 of 46 SC 397-2019 prosecution, let us have a quick look to the cardinal principles of
Criminal law-‘Burden of proof and Doctrine of Innocence’.
BURDEN OF PROOF & DOCTRINE OF INNOCENCE :
12.It is settled proposition of law as laid down in Babu vs.
State of Kerala [2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) (275) (SC)].
That in Criminal law every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. Presumption of innocence is a human right.
Further under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act in case where there is no ocular evidence and if the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacunae in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.
13.Adding to the above, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, deals with the principles of fair trial and it envisages “every one charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”.
14.Further it is also significant to note the age-old popular latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mensitrea” (both the intent and act must conquer to constitute the crime). At the same time to discern the commission of an offence four essential ingredients are to be satisfied :
a) intention to commit the crime;
b) preparation for its’ commission;
c) attempt to commit it
d) commission of the crime.
15.All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders, though causing death is common in both the cases.
16.In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the parties at the threshold it is also quite important to have a glance of 9Page 9 of 46 SC 397-2019 circumstantial evidence: Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is well settled proposition of law that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests as ruled in :
A.Chandamal Vs. State of Rajasthan-AIR 1976 SC 917;
B.Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar- AIR 2008 SC 1537.
i)Firstly , the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.
ii)Secondly those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
iii)Thirdly the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime committed by the accused and none-else. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypotheses save that of the accused’s guilt.
iv)The circumstantial evidence one or more facts cannot be decisive but all facts taken together or conclusive to establish the guilt of the accused. All the links in a chain of prosecution circumstances must be completely and conclusively established by cogent and unimpeachable evidence.
In the light of the aforesaid cardinal principles of criminal law, let us have a quick look to the ingredients of Section 300 I.P.C. and distinction between Section 302 and 304-Part-II IPC.
17.Section 300 I.P.C ., clauses 1 to 4 deals with the following intricacies of the culpable homicide amounting to murder.
10Page 10 of 46 SC 397-2019
There is greater intention or knowledge, Firstly: Act caused with the intention of causing death
Secondly: Intention + bodily injury + knowledge of the offender, it likely to cause death. Thirdly; Intention + bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Fourthly: Intention + offenders’ knowledge that the act caused is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death + commits without any excuse for incurring the risk is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
Section 304-B IPC:
The Section have the following essentials :
(1)The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2)Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (3)She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4)Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.
Section 306 IPC :
To prove the charge U/S 306 IPC the following essentials are to be proved:
(1) the commission of suicide by a person; (2)That the accused abetted the commission thereof.
SECTIONS 3 & 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT:
To prove the charge U/Ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act the following essentials are to be provided:
11Page 11 of 46 SC 397-2019
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act deals with penalty of giving or taking dowry and Section 4 deals with penalty for demanding dowry and in view of the said Penal Provisions it is just and appropriate to have a quick look to the Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which envisages the definition of the term ‘Dowry’.
SECTION No.2 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT :
Definition of the term ‘dowry’ :
In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly ----
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation : The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
POINT No.1 : ADMITTED FACTS:
18.Before adverting to the rival contentions let us have a quick look to the admitted facts which are relevant and germane U/Ss.17 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(a)The inter se relationship between the parties is not in dispute as A.1 is the husband of the deceased-Deepthi @
Amala, A.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased, A.4 to A.7 are the sisters of A.1, and A.3 is the Junior Paternal Aunt of
A.1.
(b)PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and PW.2 is the step mother of the deceased and first wife of PW.1’s husband by 12Page 12 of 46 SC 397-2019 name late.Prakash. PW.3 is the son of PW.2. The father of the deceased by name Prakash died in the year 2002.
(c)The marriage between the deceased-Deepthi and A.1 was solemnized on 04.12.2016 at Padmashali Bhavan,
Nakrekal. By the date of marriage Deepthi was pursuing her M.Com., PG Degree at Women’s College, Ramagiri,
Nalgonda.
(d)The death of Deepthi was by committing suicide and it was not under normal circmstances.
(e)The death of Deephi @ Amala occurred within (7) years of marriage (date of marriage on 04.12.2016 and date of death on 19.04.2017).
(f)After the marriage between them the deceased joined the matrimonial home with A.1 at Nakrekal.
F.I.R & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT’S ROLE :
19.At the threshold let us have a quick look to the FIR and
Defacto-complainant’s role (PW.1) in setting the criminal law into motion being the mother of the deceased-Deepthi. As per Ex.P.1-
Telugu written report, dt:19.4.2017 and as per the testimony of PW.1, at the time of marriage she presented 10 tulas of gold ornaments, net cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. Her daughter-Deepthi and son- in-law-A.1 started their matrimonial life at Nakrekal. That A.1 started harassment towards her daughter for additional dowry and A.2 to A.7 have instigated A.1 and A.1 harassed her. That on 17.04.2017 A.1 to
A.7 abused Deepthi and beat her. In this connection, PW.1 being the mother and her relatives came to Nakrekal and consoled her daughter-
Deepthi and went away. It is stated when they were returning from their daughter’s house, the accused warned them as they are no way 13Page 13 of 46 SC 397-2019 responsible if anything happens to her daughter and asked them to take away Deepthi, warned to kill Deepthi and perform another marriage to A.1. It is stated that 19.04.2017 at 11:00 hours PW.1 received the intimation from Nakrekal Police that her daughter died, upon that PW.1 and her relatives came and found her daughter-
Deepthi died and they have noticed injuries on her neck, left wrist, two arms and left knee and so they got suspicion that the accused might have murdered her daughter and PW.1 gave report to the police.
20.At this juncture, it is also relevant to look to the oral testimony of PW.1 on whose report the criminal law was set into motion. PW-01-Dunuka Shanthamma deposed that she is the resident of Akkinapally village. She is a coolie by profession. Deepthi @ Amala–the deceased was only her daughter. She knows A.1 to A.7 who are standing in the Court as A.1 is her son-in-law, A.2 is mother-in- law of the deceased, A.4 to A.7 are sisters of A.1 and A.3 is junior paternal aunt of A.1. LW.2–D.Mangamma is step mother of the deceased and first wife of her husband–Prakash. LW.3–D.Upender is the son of LW.2. Her husband–Prakash died in the year 2002. Her daughter Deepthi died on 19.04.2017 by then she was 22 years old.
Her marriage was performed with A.1 on 04.12.2016 at Padmashali
Bhavan, Nakrekal. The said marriage was arranged by LW.4–Konam
Satyanarayan, her relative LW.5–Siliveru Krishnaiah, relative of A.1.
By the date of marriage she was pursuing M.Com., at Women’s
College, Ramgiri, Nalgonda.
14Page 14 of 46 SC 397-2019
21.PW.1 deposed that at the time of marriage she has presented 10 Thulas of gold ornaments including necklace, ear rings, etc., and paid net cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. That A.1 and the deceased started their matrimonial life at Nakrekal in the house of
A.1. A.2 and A.3 were also residing along with A.1 and her daughter.
On the eve of Sakranthi festival in the year 2017 her daughter and A.1 came to her house at Akkinapally village. Her daughter informed her that A.1 harassing her demanding dowry and A.1 used to give lot of preference to his junior paternal aunt–A3–Kolanu Prameela. She has convinced both A.1 and her daughter to lead matrimonial life by adjustment and after two days they left to their house at Nakrekal.
22.PW.1 further deposed that on 15.04.2017 (Sunday) she had been to Nakrekal to see her daughter and herself, A.1 and the deceased attended the opening ceremony of Cloth shop belonging to one Gurram Venkanna. While returning from the opening ceremony at night 8:00 PM, they have noticed A.3 selling Ginger and Garlic on
Thipparthy road side and she called on her as her daughter informed during Sunkranthi visit that A.3 left the house of A.1 having differences with her daughter. A.1 asked A.3 to join his house. A.3 informed that she will join A.1 house and they left the place to house of A.1. A.1 beat her daughter–Deepthi stating that unless she bow down and touch the feet of A.3, A.3 will not join the house. On that altercation took place between A.1 and her daughter as her daughter claimed she has not committed any sin to touch the feet of A.3, that A.1 became wild and beat her daughter and pushed her to the bathroom wall. Then she 15Page 15 of 46 SC 397-2019 intervened and questioned A.1 as to why her daughter has to face two mothers-in-law and A.1 abused her in filthy language and necked out her and her daughter out of the house at about 10:00 PM.
23.PW.1 also deposed that A.1 called LW.4–Konam
Satyanarayana and his wife–Konam Sarawathi and they convinced her daughter and they left the place. Then they joined again A.1 and by then herself, her daughter, A.1 and A.2 were present in the house. On the next day morning A.2 abused her and her daughter and due to harassment herself and her daughter left the house of A.1 and approached LW.4–K.Satyanarayana. LW.4–K.Satyanarayana called
LW.2–D.Mangamma, step mother of the deceased and got convened a panchayath at the house of A.1 on 16.04.2017 (Monday). During the panchayath A.1 to A.7 were present and along with LW.4–
K.Satyanarayana and LW.5-Siliveru Krishna and during the panchayath her daughter touched the feet of A.2 to A.7. During panchayath also
A.2 to A.7 abused them stating they are leading immoral life, presented less dowry, not allowing her daughter to pursue her education.
24.Further, PW.1 deposed that on the next day on 17.04.2017 she left the house of A.1 leaving her daughter with A.1. That on 17.04.2017 after she came down to her house she called A.1 over phone for 4 or 5 times but there is no response. On the next day i.e., 18.04.2017 (Wednesday) complaining harassment by A.1 to A.7 the deceased called on her stating that they have pushed her to the wall with force and they are killing her. She replied to her daughter that she will come. On 19.04.2017 LW.3–D.Upender called her at about 10:00 16Page 16 of 46 SC 397-2019
AM, over phone stating that her daughter died by hanging. Then she rushed to Nakrekal and noticed the dead body of her daughter at the
Government Hospital, Nakrekal and noticed scars over the neck of her daughter and injuries over the legs. Thereafter she gave a report to the police. Ex.P1 is the Telugu written report, dt: 19.04.2017 given to the SHO, Nakrekal P.S., (1 sheet) Ex.P.1 was scribed by D.Upender–
LW.3 on her narration. Later on police have examined her and recorded her statement. She gave a statement before the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ramannapet. Witness identified
her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Her daughter was subjected to cruelty by
A.1 to A.7 before her death.
25.PW-2-Dunuka Mangamma, step mother of the deceased, deposed that she is the resident of Suryapet Town. She is a Cook by profession. PW.1 is her co-wife. The deceased - Deepthi @ Amala was the daughter of PW.1. A.1 is the husband of the deceased. She knows A.2 to A.7. LW.3 – D.Upender is my son. She knows LW.4 –
Konam Satyanarayana who is the relative of PW.1. LW.4 arranged the marriage between A.1 and Deepthi. She knows LW.5–Siluveru
Krishnaiah who is the relative of PW.1. She do not now other prosecution witnesses–Lws.6 to 11. The marriage between A1 and
Deepthi–the deceased was performed on 04.12.2016 at Padmashali
Bhavan, Nakrekal. At their marriage PW.1 presented 5 thulas of Gold ornaments and cash of Rs.40,000/-. The deceased joined the matrimonial home with A1 at Nakrekal. She knows A.2 and A.3 who are mothers-in-law of Deepthi. She cannot identify A.4 to A.7 by name.
17Page 17 of 46 SC 397-2019
That after one month of the marriage A.1 called her over phone stating that Deepthi left his company as the deceased not taking food. Later on a panchayath was convened at the house of A.1 and A.1 to A.7 were present, PW.1, herself, the elder person who mediated the marriage apart from the deceased.
26.PW.2 also deposed that during panchayath A.1 to A.7 abused Deepthi in filthy language and challenged her life. She has convinced the couple and thereafter she left the house of A.1. The deceased was pursuing her higher education by the date of marriage.
After three days of the said panchayath A.1 called her over phone and informed that Deepthi committed suicide. She rushed to the house of
A.1 and noticed the dead body of Deepthi lying down on the floor.
Deepthi committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan and she has noticed Saree used for hanging to the ceiling fan. She has noticed scar over the neck of the deceased. Deepthi committed suicide due to harassment of the accused. Police have examined her and recorded her statement. Dead body was shifted to the Government Hospital,
Nakrekal, by the police.
27.PW-3-Dunuka Upender, step brother of the deceased, deposed that he is the resident of Raheemkhanpet village. He is a
Weaver by profession. He knows PW.1 who is the second wife of his father and she is his step mother. PW.2 is his mother. He knows
LW.4–Konam Satyanarayana who is the relative of PW.1. He knows
LW.5–Siluveru Krishnaiah who is the relative of PW.1. He knows LW6.
– Sriramula Ramulu who is his junior paternal uncle. Deepthi @ 18Page 18 of 46 SC 397-2019
Amala–deceased who is the daughter of PW.1 and his sister. She married A.1 and A.1 is the husband of the deceased. A.2 is the mother of A.1, A.3 is his maternal aunt. He knows A.4 to A.7 who are the sisters of A.1. He knows A.1 to A.7. A1 married the deceased on 04.12.2016 at Padmashali Bhavan, Nakrekal. For the marriage of A.1 and Deepthi PW.1 presented 10 thulas of gold ornaments including
Mangala suthram, Black beeds chain, Neckless, ear rings and cash of
Rs.2,00,000/-. A.1 and Deepthi started matrimonial life at Nakrekal.
A.2 and A.3 were also residing in the same house with A.1. PW.3 deposed that during the Sunkranthi festival of 2017 in the month of
January his sister–Deepthi and A.1 came to PW.1’s house. The deceased used to informed him over phone stating that A.1 demanding
Gold bracelet and one two wheeler towards additional dowry and they expressed their inability. He was residing in Hyderabad from 2014 to 2019 and he used to work as Collection Agent at Begumpet HDFC
Bank. The deceased used to inform him over phone that A.1 to A.7 subjected her to harassment demanding additional dowry. On 16.04.2017 the deceased called him over phone complaining that A.1 beat her and pushed her to the washroom wall. Then he convinced her to adjust with the family life. That on 17.04.2017 PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the house of the deceased at Nakrekal and got convinced the deceased to cultivate adjustment.
28.Further PW.3 deposed that on the next day i.e., on 18.04.2017 the deceased called him over phone and PW.1 and complained harassment by A.1 to A.3. He consoled her and that he 19Page 19 of 46 SC 397-2019 will visit Nakrekal to subside the issue. On 19.04.2017 at about 10:30
AM, he received phone call from PW.2–his mother informing that
Deepthi committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. From
Hyderabad he rushed to Nakrekal and visited the Government Hospital and noticed the dead body of Deepthi in the mortuary room. He has noticed injuries to the neck, legs, hands and wrist with nail marks. I am suspecting that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, killed her and created suicide episode. Thereafter PW.1 gave report to the police. He is not the scribe of Ex.P.1. Initially on the narration of PW.1 he has prepared a draft complaint and thereafter the said complaint was made fair copy by one Vaddepally Yadaiah. Police have examined him and recorded his statement.
29.PW-4-Konam Sathyanarayana, one of the mediators for the panchayat convened, deposed that he is the resident of Nakrekal village. His occupation is Kirana business. He knows PW.1 who is his senior paternal uncle’s daughter. PW.2 is the first wife of late Prakash.
PW.3 is the son of PW.2. He knows LW.5–Siliveru Krishnaiah. He knows A.1 and the deceased– Deepthi. A.2 is the mother of A.1. He do not know A.3 to A.7 who are standing in the Court. Witness identified only A.1 and A.2. Witness again says he knows A.3 to A.7 after the marriage of A.1 and Deepthi. During 2016 PW.1 asked him to arrange marriage alliance for Deepthi and through one marriage mediator – Rapolu Bixapathi the marriage between A.1 and Deepthi was got fixed in the month of December the marriage between A.1 and
Deepthi was performed at Padmashali Bhavan, Nakrekal. He has 20Page 20 of 46 SC 397-2019 graced the marriage occasion. Deepthi joined A.1 and Deepthi was pursuing PG course.
30.PW.4 also deposed that after three months of the marriage during night time A.1 called him over phone stating that Deepthi is having differences with family members and they are not cordial and requested him to convince them. Himself and his wife attended the panchayath convened in the house of A.1 at night time one week prior to the date of death of Deepthi, A.2 to A.7 were present, PW.1, her daughter–Deepthi were all present. Deepthi informed to his wife–
Saraswathi in grief that she was beaten by A.1 all over the body, in his presence. Since it is night time it is not better to continue the panchayath and they left the house. On the next day morning PW.1 and her daughter–Deepthi came to his house with baggage and informed him that they are leaving to Akkinepally village as Deepthi was afraid of dire consequences in the house of A.1. On phone call
PW.2 came to his house. PW.2 advised PW.1 and her daughter–
Deepthi it is not better to leave for Akkinepally village, since Deepthi has to cultivate adjustment to lead marital life with A.1, convinced them and taken PW.1 and her daughter–Deepthi to the house of A.1. After 4 or 5 days his neighbour informed him that Deepthi committed suicide.
Police have examined him and recorded his statement.
31.PW-5-Sriramula Ramulu deposed that he is the resident of
Suryapet Town. He is an agriculturist. He knows PWs.1 and 2 who are his relatives. PW.3 is the son of PW.2. He knows PW.4 who is the resident of Nakrekal village and his distant relative. He knows the 21Page 21 of 46 SC 397-2019 deceased – Deepthi and A.1 who is her husband. He knows A.2 who is mother of A.1. A.3 to A.7 are relatives of A.1 and A.2, but he has no acquaintance with them. A.1’s marriage was performed with the deceased in the month of December 2016 at Padmashali Bhavan,
Nakrekal. For the marriage of A1 PW.1 presented 10 thulas of Gold ornaments and some cash. After 3 or 4 months of their marriage A.1 and the deceased got differences and in that connection PW.2 summoned him for panchayath, but he did not attend the panchayath.
After 10 or 15 days PW.2 called him over phone and informed him that
Deepthi committed suicide. Then he rushed to the Government
Hospital, Nakrekal and noticed the dead body, injuries to the neck, scratches to the body. He came to know that Deepthi was killed by her family members and created as if it is a suicide. Police have examined him and recorded his statement.
32.PW-8-Boddepally Yadaiah deposed that he is resident of
Akkinapally Village. He is an agriculturist. Previously he had officiated as Surpanch for Akkinapally village from 2006 to 2011. He knows PW.1 being my villager. He knows PWs.2 to 6. Deepthi was the daughter of PW.1, A.1 is the husband of Deepthi. He knows A.2 who is the mother-in-law of Deepthi. A.3 is the maternal aunt of A.1.
He knows A.4 to A.7 who are the sisters of A.1. The marriage between
A.1 and Deepthi was performed on 04.12.2016 at Padmashali Bhavan,
Nakrekal. He has graced the marriage of A.1 and Deepthi. For their marriage PW.1 presented 10 thulas of Gold ornaments and cash of
Rs.2,00,000/-A.1 and Deepthi shared the matrimonial life at in-laws 22Page 22 of 46 SC 397-2019 house at Nakrekal. Due to harassment and cruelty caused by A.1 to
A.7 Deepthi was killed and shown it as hanging. On information of the death of Deepthi he had been to Government Hospital, Nakrekal and noticed the dead body of Deepthi. He is the scribe of Ex.P.1 and he has endorsed the same in Ex.P.1 and he has prepared it on the narration by PW.1. Initially a draft complaint was prepared by PW.3 on the narration by PW.1. Police have examined and recorded his statement.
33.PW.11-Siripuram Vijayalaxmi deposed that she is the resident of Nalgonda Town. She is a Tailor by profession. On 20.04.2017 at 10:30 AM, police called her and PWs.9 and 10 to the
Government Hospital, Nakrekal and the police have conducted inquest over the dead body of Deepthi and got prepared the inquest panchanama in their presence. During the course of inquest panchanama they have noticed black scars over the neck of the deceased, scratch injury to the left hand wrist, left leg and police have seized the following cloths from the death body of Deepthi:
(1)Cotton Punjabi frock with red, white colour with black scars–M.O.1. (2)White bra with black strips–M.O.2 (3)Black cotton leg-in-M.O.3.
34.PW.9 to PW.11 have attested the inquest panchanama and seizure report, dt:20.04.2017. Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama,
dt:20.04.2017 attested by her and PWs.9 and 10 (3 sheets).Ex.P.7 is
the seizure report, dt: 20.04.2017 (1 sheet).
23Page 23 of 46 SC 397-2019
35.PW-12-Bheemarao Ambedkar, deposed that he is the resident of Uppal, Hyderabad. He retired as Tahasildar on 30.09.2019.
Previously he worked as Tahasildar, Nakrekal mandal from July 2015 to June 2017. He received requisition from SHO, Nakrekal P.S., requesting him to conduct inquest over the dead body of one Deepthi
W/o Saidulu, 22 years old and he has summoned PWs.9 to 11 and in the presence of relatives of the deceased and he has got conducted inquest over the dead body and got prepared the inquest report–Ex.P6 signed by him and attested by PWs.9 to 11. During the course of inquest proceedings he has noticed black scars over the neck of the deceased, scratch injury to the left hand wrist and left leg.
36.PW-13-Dr.A.Sathyanarayana deposed that he is now working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Center, P.A.Pally.
Previously he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon Community Health
Center, Nakrekal from December 2016 to December 2017. During his tenure at Nakrekal he received requisition from the SHO, Nakrekal to conduct autopsy over the dead body of Deepthi @ Amala W/o Saidulu, 22 years old, Rahamath Nagar, Nakrekal. On the same day himself and his colleague-Dr. V.Rajitha, CAS, Community Health Center,
Nakrekal have conducted autopsy over the dead body of Deepthi on 20.04.2017 commenced at 3:05 PM. They have noticed the following external injuries :
24Page 24 of 46 SC 397-2019
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
I) Small abrasion at left leg medial aspect in addition to ligature mark 4x4cm over the neck. No other external injuries were noticed.
37.PW.13 deposed that he has sent Hyoid bone to the
Department of Forensic, Hyderabad for expert opinion. He has not noticed any internal injuries. They have preserved and sent stomach and a piece of intestine, piece of liver, kidney and spleen etc., to the
FSL. They have issued PM report opining that the cause of death of
Deepthi was due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to hanging. The approximate time of death is 36 hours prior to PME. In the FSL report it discloses that no poisonous substance is found in the chemical test conducted for the above organs bone. In the expert opining Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are intact. Ex.P8 is the Postmortem report,
dt: 24.04.2017 issued by him and Dr. V.Rajitha (2 sheets). Ex.P9 is the
FSL report vide file No. TOX/1412/2017, dt: 11.07.2017 opining that no poisonous substance is found in Items No.1 to 5 named in the report (1 sheet).Ex.P10istheExpertopinionvideEO
No.49/FM/OMC-OGH/2017, dt: 08.05.2017 issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Osmania Medical College/Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad. Abrasion at left leg medial aspect might have been caused in running or walking hurriedly and it is antemortem injury.
38.PW-14-K.Subbarami Reddy, Circle Inspector deposed that he is now working as Inspector of police, Sulthan Bazar P.S.
25Page 25 of 46 SC 397-2019
Hyderabad Previously he worked as Inspector of police, Nakrekal P.S.
from 16.07.2016 to 06.09.2018. During his tenure at Nakrekal on 19.04.2017 at 6:40 PM, PW.3 presented a Telugu written report–
Ex.P.1 signed by PW.1 and scribed by PW.8-Vaddepally Yadaiah. He has registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.115/2017 under section 302, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P.11 is the FIR in Cr.No.115/2017 under section 302, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act given by PW.1 (1 sheet). He took up investigation, examined PW.3 and 5 and recorded their statements in the police station itself. Thereafter he visited Community Health Center, Nakrekal and the dead body of Deepthi @ Amala was shifted to Nakrekal
Community Health Center. PW.1 though was present but not able to give statement due to shock of death of her daughter–Deepthi.
39.PW.14 deposed that he visited the scene of offence that is house No.15-119 of A1 at Rahamathnagar, Nakrekal and posted two bandobasth constables. Since the death of Deepthi within 4 months of the marriage he has issued requisition to the Tahasildar, Nakrekal mandal–PW.12 to conduct inquest over the dead body. On 20.04.2017 in the morning hours he has visited Community Health Center,
Nakrekal along with PC 3110 who is videographer, recorded the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements and the same was videographed. Thereafter PW.12–Tahasildar came to the
Community Health Center, Nakrekal. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence on 20.04.2017, he has examined PW.6, 7 and LW.8–Sai 26Page 26 of 46 SC 397-2019
Suresh, being the neighbours, and recorded their statements. PWs.6 and 7 have stated before his about the facts within their knowledge and
PW.7 have stated before him as in Ex.P2. He has summoned PWs.9 and 10 to the scene of offence and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized from the scene of offence one silk
Sari used for hanging and one plastic stool in the presence of panch witnesses under a cover of scene of offence cum seizure panchanama attested by the mediators. Ex.P12 is the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, dt:20.04.2017 (2 sheets) attested by the mediators.
M.O.4 is the silk Saree with flower design. M.O.5 is the Chethan company light orange colour plastic stool. He has taken (4) colour post card size photographs of the scene of offence through the same PC.
Ex.P13 are the (4) colour post card size photographs of the scene of offence.
40.PW.14 also deposed that along with the panch witnesses and Tahasildar proceeded to Community Health Center, Nakrekal, summoned PW.11 and in the presence of PWs.9 to 11 the Tahasildar held inquest over the dead body of Deepthi and got prepared the inquest panchanama attested by the mediators. He has taken (6) colour post card size photographs of the dead body and it is Ex.P14.
They have noticed ligature mark over the neck of the dead body, injury on left hand wrist, injury inside the left leg, stool in the deceased pant.
Thereafter the dead body was sent to the Postmortem examination and after completion of Postmortem examination by the Medical Officers the dead body was handed over to the relatives. The preserved Hyoid 27Page 27 of 46 SC 397-2019 bone and viscera was sent to the analysis. After completion of PME we have seized M.Os.1 to 3 from the dead body under Ex.P.7–seizure list of panchanama. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence secured the presence of LW.5–Siluveru Krishnaiah, LW.10–Shaik
Ahmed, LW.11–Abdul Azeez, LW.12–Devulapally Sugunamma examined them and recorded their statements. On 21.04.2017 he has collected wedding invitation card of A1 and Deepthi, Lagna Pathrika, (3) colour post card size marriage photographs from PW.3. Ex.P.15 is the Lagna Pathrika, dt: Nil, (1 sheet). Ex.P.16 is the wedding invitation card in Telugu and English languages (1 sheet). Ex.P.17 are the (3) colour post card size marriage photographs.
41.PW.14 further deposed that on 25.04.2017 he has secured the presence of PW.4 examined him and recorded his statement. On 27.04.2017 he examined PW.8–scribe of Ex.P1 and recorded his statement. Hyoid bone and viscera contents were sent to FSL and
Expert through process. Thereafter on the instructions of the S.P. the section of Law was altered from 498-A, 302 r/w 34 IPC to 304-B IPC on 26.06.2017 and issued alteration memo accordingly. Ex.P.18 is the alteration memo, dt: 26.06.2017 issued by him (2 sheets). Thereafter the CD file was transferred to SDPO, Nalgonda for further investigation.
42.PW-15-Investigating Officer, S.Sudhakar that he retired from services as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kachiguda on 31.08.2020. Previously he worked as Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Nalgonda from 05.11.2015 to 24.10.2018. On 26.06.2017 he took up 28Page 28 of 46 SC 397-2019 investigation from PW.14, verified the same and found it on correct lines. He has rerecorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and LW.5–
Siliveru Krishnaiah and they have reiterated the same statements. On 25.07.2017 PW.14 arrested A.1 to A.3 at their house No.15-119,
Rahamathnagar, Nakrekal and produced before him in connection with this case, interrogated them and sent them to the Court for remand as
A.1 to A.3 have confessed about the offence. On the requisition filed by him before the learned Magistrate at Ramannapet for recording the statement of PW.1, the statement of PW.1 was recorded by the learned
Magistrate at Ramannapet under section 164 Cr.P.C.
43.PW.15-Investigating Officer further deposed that on 29.04.2017 he has forwarded Material Objects viz., Hyoid bone and
Viscera to the FSL and Expert for opinion at the instance of PW.14.
During the course of investigation he has collected FSL report–Ex.P.9,
Expert opinion–Ex.P.10 and Postmortem report from the Medical
Officer duly completing the investigation he has filed charge sheet in this case as his investigation revealed that A.1 to A.7 have committed dowry harassment and responsible for the death of Deepthi. A.4 to A.7 obtained anticipatory bail from this Court vide orders in Crl.MP
No.1521/2017, dt: 28.12.2017. He has not filed charge sheet against one Pendem Srinivas, Gurram Venkanna S/o Laxminarsaiah,
Chittiprolu Shekhar and Gurram Venkanna S/o Manikyam, who are the husbands of A.4 to A.7 as his investigation does not reveal any material against them. Ex.P.19 is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 29Page 29 of 46 SC 397-2019 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, dt:
28.10.2017 (1 sheet).
44. At the outset let us have a look the pre-incident events and circumstances were transpired between the families.
45.PRE-OFFENCE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES :
(a)During the Sankranthi festival of January, 2017 the deceased and A.1 visited the house of PW.1 being the first festival after their marriage and it is the common evidence of PW.1, PW.3 that the deceased-Deepthi complained that A.1 harassing her demanding
additional dowry and A.1 used to give lot of undue preference to his
junior paternal aunt-A.3 and on the said grievance PW.1 convinced her daughter-Deepthi, as a normal natural mother, to adopt the virtue of adjustment in the matrimonial life and home.
(b)On 15.04.2017 being Sunday PW.1 had been to Nakrekal to call on her daughter-Deepthi and while returning she came to know that A.3 left the house of A.1 having differences with the deceased and in order to join A.3 again the house of A.1 there was a condition that the deceased has to bow down and touch the feet of A.3 enabling A.3 to join the house of A.1 and A.2. Thus serious verbal altercations took place when the deceased refused to bow down and touch the feet of
A.3 on the ground that she has committed no sin.
(c)Enraged with the attitude of the deceased, A.1 beat Deepthi physically and pushed her to bathroom-wall. On 16.04.2017 the deceased called PW.3 being the step-son over phone complaining that
A.1 beat Deepthi and pushed her to bathroom wall and she sustained 30Page 30 of 46 SC 397-2019 injuries. The said incident lead to exchange of heated arguments between the parties and the charged atmosphere continued. PW.1 and PW.3 also once again convinced Deepthi to adjust with the A.1 and her in-laws which is quite probable as no mother would wish for break up of conjugal life within 2 or 3 months of the marriage.
(d)It is also the evidence in corroboration by PWs.1 and 3 that on 16.04.2017 Monday, a panchayath was convened and convinced
Deepthi to join the matrimonial home of A.1. For that panchayath all the accused 1 to 7 were present.
(e)For the said panchayath on 16.04.2017 PW.4-
K.Sathyanarayana, LW.5-Silveru Krishna were also present apart from
A.1 to A.7 and during the panchayath also there was exchange of heated arguments between the families and during the panchayath the deceased bow down and touched the feet of A.2 to A.7. Thereafter on 17.04.2017 Pw.1 left for her house leaving the deceased with A.1.
(f)On 17.04.2017 after PW.1 came down to the house called
A.1 over phone for 4 or 5 times but there is no response from A.1.
(g)On 18.04.2017-Wednesday complaining harassment by A.1 to A.7 the deceased-Deepthi called PW.1 stating that she was beat and pushed to the wall with force and they are killing her. Then PW.1 replied to her daughter that she is visiting her in-laws house again.
46.On 19.04.2017 PW.3 called PW.1 over phone and informed that Deepthi died by committing suicide by hanging. It is the specific evidence of PW.3-being step brother, that on 18.04.2017 the deceased called him over phone and complained harassment by A.1 to A.3. He 31Page 31 of 46 SC 397-2019 consoled her and PW.3 promised to visit Nakrekal to subside the issue on 18.04.2017. On 19.04.2017 at 10:30 AM PW.3 received phone-call from PW.2 informing that Deepthi committed suicide by hanging to the
Ceiling Fan.
47.Prima facie, from the oral testimony of material and key witnesses viz., PWs. 1 and 3 it is quite clear that Deepthi was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband-A.1, mothers-in-law-
A.2, A.3 and the said harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry and that lead Deepthi to deep depression and frustration to commit suicide by hanging. Further it also reveals that except the presence of A.3 to A.7 during the panchayath convened on 16.04.2017 the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is quite silent that A.4 to A.7 also participated or instigated A.1 to A.3 to commit cruelty or harassment demanding dowry. Merely because the deceased touched the feet of
A.4 to A.7 during the course of panchayath and there was heated arguments between the families that alone is not sufficient to rope in
A.4 to A.7 for the main charge punishable U/S.304-B IPC. It is never the evidence of PWs.1 & 3 that A.4 to A.7 abetted the commission of suicide by Deepthi to attract the alternative charge punisahble U/S. 306
IPC also.
48.Adding to the above observations and findings, virtually nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 either to discard their evidence or to take a different view that Deepthi’s death was under normal circumstances, that she was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by A.1 to A.3 and the said cruelty was not in connection 32Page 32 of 46 SC 397-2019 with demand for dowry. Further the following beneficial points have been elicited from the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 which are further leading to the establishment of the charge framed U/S 304-B of
I.P.C.
49.From the cross-examination of PW.1 dt:08.3.2021 it was elicited that her daughter-Deepthi sustained bleeding head injury on 15.04.2017, but she has not taken her daughter to any doctor. PW.1 stated that her husband-Prakash married PW.2 initially and after divorce with her he married PW.1. Her husband died after two years of her marriage took place in 1991. Except putting formal suggestions nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony.
50.PW.2 who is the first wife of the said Prakash, in the chief- examination itself stated that she can not identify A.4 to A.7 by name and she knows only A.1 to A.3 and except in the panchayath convened in the house of A.1 she has not seen A.4 to A.7. From the cross- examination of PW.3 it was elicited that initially he drafted the complaint on the narration of PW.1 and thereafter PW.1 gave a report to the police and so on the phone-call received from PW.2, his mother on 19.04.2017, he rushed to Nakrekal from Hyderabad and visited the
Government Hospital, Nakrekal and noticed the dead-body of Deepthi in the mortuary room. Thus even PW.3 denied all the suggestions confronted to him and no material contradictions or variations or inconsistencies were elicited from the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to discredit their testimony and in fact, PWs.2 and 3 have no prior- acquaintance with the accused.
33Page 33 of 46 SC 397-2019
51.From the cross-examination or PW.3 it was also elicited that there was no divorce between his mother-PW.2 and father-
Prakasham but they were residing separately due to differences between them. After his father married PW.1 they were residing at
Surath of Gujarath State for two years for occupation. So, PW.3 is also the material witness who received phone call from the deceased on 18.04.2017 complaining harassment by A.1 to A.3, being the step- brother of the deceased. Although there are minor variations and inconsistencies on the minor aspects between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 with regard to the marriage between the father of PW.3 and
PW.1, etc., that alone is not a ground to say that the oral testimony of
PWs.1 to 3 suffers from material inconsistencies or variations touching the root of the case. Thus the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 are irresistibly leading to the conclusion that
Deepthi’s death was otherwise than under normal circumstances as she committed suicide by hanging and the said death taken place within 7 years of her marriage and prior to the death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry.
52.In this case as already stated PW.4 knows PW.1 who is his senior paternal uncle’s daughter. PW.4 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that out of A.4 to A.7-sisters of A.1, two sisters are residing at Nakrekal, two sisters are residing at outside Nakrekal. It is his evidence that himself and his wife have graced the panchayath convened in the house of A.1 at one week prior to the date of death of
Deepthi and on that occasion only he noticed A.4 to A.7 were also 34Page 34 of 46 SC 397-2019 present in the panchayath. During the panchayath Deepthi informed to his wife-Saraswathi in grief that she was beaten by A.1 all over the body and he was also present at the time of the said grievance expressed by Deepthi. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is also helpful to the limited extent about convening a panchayath between the families and his evidence is also leading to the conclusion that strong differences and displeasure climate existing between the families prior to the death of Deepthi and PW.4’s oral testimony is in tune with the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 in respect of panchayat and the cause of action for panchayat.
53.PW.5 who is relative of PWs.1 and 2 also was summoned for panchayath by PW.2 but he did not attend for the panchayath. He has no acquaintance with A.3 to A.7. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 is also only helpful to the extent that differences arose between the families and a panchayath was convened and he was invited to the panchayath.
54.The prosecution also examined PW.8, who is no other than the Sarpanch of Akkenapally village from 2006 to 2011 and he knows
PWs.1 to 6 as well as A.1 to A.7. His evidence is that he graced the marriage between A.1 and Deepthi performed on 4.12.2016 at
Padmashali Bhavan, Nakrekal and for their marriage PW.1 presented 10 tulas of Gold ornaments and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. After the death intimation of Deepthi, he had been to the Government Hospital,
Nakrekal, and noticed the dead body. He is also the scribe of Ex.P.1 and endorsed the same in Ex.P.1 and he prepared it to the narration of 35Page 35 of 46 SC 397-2019
PW.1. Of course, PW.8 made an omnibus statement that due to the harassment and cruelty caused by A.1 to A.7 Deepthi was killed and shown it was hanging. So the oral testimony of PW.8 is only helpful to the extent of preparing Ex.P.1 and Deepthi was subjected to cruelty prior to her death and Deepthi’s death is not natural death.
55.The prosecution examined PWs.6 and 7 as neighbours and independent witnesses to the occurrence but unfortunately PWs.6 and 7 turned hostile to the case and stated that they do not know the cause of death of Deepthi that Deepthi committed suicide in her house by then A.1 and A.2 were residing in the same house. Merely because
PWs.6 and 7 turned hostile to the case that alone is not a ground to set at naught the credibility and evidenciary value of the oral testimony of
PWs.1 to 3 and the hostile evidence of PWs.6 and 7 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in so far as the charge framed U/S 304-B IPC against A.1 to A.3.
SCENE OF OFFENCE PANCHANAMA :
56.The prosecution examined PWs.9 and 10 as mediators for the observation of scene of offence and inquest panchanama but they turned hostile to the case in toto. But the prosecution examined PW.11 as one of the witnesses for inquest panchanama and he supported the case of the prosecution and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3-clothes from the deceased during the course of inquest panchanama. Merely because panch-slips were not affixed on M.Os.1 to 3 but panch-slip was affixed on the plastic bag in which M.Os.1 to 3 were kept and so he attested
Exs.P.6 and P.7-inquest panchanama and seizure report- 36Page 36 of 46 SC 397-2019
dt:20.04.2017. Therefore, the evidence of PW.11 coupled with the oral
testimony of PW.12-Tahsildar, Nakrekal, who conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body is helpful to prove the contents of
Ex.P.6 and P.7. According to PW.12, during the course of inquest proceedings he noticed black scars over the neck of the deceased, scratch injury to the left hand wrist and left leg. PW.12 is a public servant and he has no enmity to speak falsehood. PW.11 is also an independent witness and he supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the inquest panchanama and seizure of Mos.1 to 3.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE :
57.According to the Medical Officer-PW.13, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, except one small abrasion at the left leg medial aspect in addition to the ligature mark over the neck there are no other external injuries and he has not noticed any internal injuries.
He preserved the hyoid bone and sent the same to the Department of
Forensic, Hyderabad, for expert opinion and as per Exs.P.9 and P.10 the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage were intact. According to PW.13 the abrasion of left leg medial aspect might have been caused in running or walking hurriedly and it is ante mortem injury and the said abrasion was fresh in nature and 48 hours old. Thus the medical evidence is also supporting the case of the prosecution to establish that Deepthi committed suicide by hanging and she sustained an abrasion to the left leg medial aspect lending support to the case of
PWs.1 to 3 that Deepthi was subjected to cruelty by A.1 to A.3 in connection with demand for dowry.
37Page 37 of 46 SC 397-2019
ROLE OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER :
58.In this case from the cross-examination of PW.14-
Investigating Officer it was elicited that the distance between the scene of offence and police station is only 50 yards and the scene of offence located behind the police station. On information about the incident the
Police constables-Raghu and another have visited the scene of offence. PW.8-the scribe of Ex.P.1, did not accompany PW.1 at the time of Ex.P.1. Since PWs.9 and 10 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution Ex.P.12-scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama was testified through PW.14 and under Ex.P.12, MOs.4 and 5 were seized from the scene of offence which are incriminating material leading to the conclusion that Deepthi committed suicide with the help of MO.4- silk sari, MO.5-Plastic stool and the Investigating Officer has also got taken Ex.P.13-photographs of the scene of offence.
59.Even from the cross-examination of PW.14 it was elicited that though A.3 is resident of Koyalagudem village but A.3 is residing at Nakrekal in A.1’s house and this part of investigation is in tune with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 about the participation of A.3 in the commission of offence and A.3 is the center point woman villain and she joined A.1, A.2 in subjecting Deepthi to cruelty. PW.14 fairly admitted in his cross-examination that A.4 to A.7 are residing with their respective families at Nakrekal, Nalgonda, Cherlapalli villages and they are not residing with A.1 and A.2. Further PW.14 added and voluntarily stated that A.4 to A.7 came to Nakrekal on 16.04.2017 to pacify the differences between A.1 and Deepthi and after convening the 38Page 38 of 46 SC 397-2019 panchayath A.4 to A.7 left Nakrekal. (Emphasis supplied by me). Thus, there is no incriminating material elicited from the evidence of PW.14-
Investigating Officer to incriminate A.4 to A.7 with any one of the charges framed and as such A.4 to A.7 are entitled to the said benefit of doubt and consequential recording of acquittal against them.
60.PW.15 the final Investigating Officer, who has arrested A.1 to A.3 on 25.07.2017 during the course of investigation, interrogated them and A.1 to A.3 have confessed about the offence. PW.15 did not arrest A.4 to A.7 as they obtained anticipatory bail from this Court vide
Orders in Crl.M.P No.1521/2017, dt:28.12.2017 and his investigation revealed as slated U/S 173 Cr.P.C., inter alia, A.1 to A.3 subjected
Deepthi to cruelty, picked up quarrels and beat her. Even A.1 proclaimed openly, imposed condition that the deceased should bow down before A.2 to A.7 and touch the feet to join the conjugal home with A.1. Even in the Final Report except making an omnibus allegation against A.4 to A.7 that they challenged the deceased saying that they will see how Deepthi would continue her conjugal life and took away
A.3 with them. The said allegation is not corroborated by any independent witness including relatives of PWs.1 and 3. Inter alia, it was alleged that on 19.04.2017, morning at 9:00 AM when A.1 and
A.2 had been to attend their business, since the deceased remained alone in the house she committed suicide in her house by hanging with the help of sari by tying it to the Ceiling Fan in the bedroom.
Therefore, the investigation conducted by PWs.14 and 15 is not faulty in respect of A.1 to A.3 and it is only faulty in respect of A.4 to A.7.
39Page 39 of 46 SC 397-2019
61.Coming to the defence urged by the accused that Deepthi committed suicide due to inferiority complex as A.1 is an illiterate, petty business man, running a provision shop at Mayabazar, Thipparthy
Road, Nakrekal. That Deepthi was a PG student and that she married
A.1 at the instance of PW.1 after cancellation of her engagement with one Nani Upender resident of Nakrekal. Prima facie and admittedly
Deepthi was a major and PG student pursuing her M.Com Course and if at all she is not interested to marry A.1 with his status, she ought to have objected at the time of marriage itself and there is no evidence or material produced to show that Deepthi was suffering from inferiority complex of A.1’s social and financial status. Therefore the defence urged by the accused is of no help to ease-out A.1 to A.3 from the main charge framed U/S 304-B IPC.
62.It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused that since neighbours-PWs.6 and 7 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and since another neighbouring-witness LW.8-Sai Suresh was not examined, the accused are entitled to the said benefit of doubt and conviction for any one of the charges against the accused is not maintainable. In this case, admittedly the death of Deepthi taken place within less than 5 months of the marriage (Date of Marriage:
04.12.2016 and Date of Death: 19.04.2017) and therefore for the internal affairs and differences between the family members the neighbours can not be expected to know the minute details and the best witnesses in the case of this nature is the close family members and relatives. Therefore, the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3 assumes 40Page 40 of 46 SC 397-2019 importance and although it is uncorroborated testimony in minor aspects, it can be relied on as it is the quality of evidence that let in by the prosecution is the criteria to record the conviction and there is no law prescribed quantifying the number of witnesses to testify any fact as envisaged U/S 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 is natural, reliable and trustworthy in nature and the accused/A.1 to A.3 are not entitled to any benefit of doubt. In view of the findings recorded in respect of the charge framed and punishable
U/S 304-B IPC., there is no need to convict A.1 to A.3 for the alternative charge punishable U/S 306 IPC. Therefore the alternative charge framed U/S 306 IPC is deemed to be dropped against A.1 to
A.7.
Charges framed U/Ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act:
63.It is the constant and consistent case of the prosecution that for the marriage of A.1 and Deepthi PW.1 presented 10 tulas of
Gold ornaments including necklace, ear-rings, etc., and paid net cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. PW.2 also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in respect of the presentation of Gold ornaments and cash towards the dowry to A.1. Even the final out-come of the investigation conducted by PWs.14 and 15 also lend support to the case of PW.1 in this regard. Therefore A.1 and A.2 are liable for the offence punishable
U/S.3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of the fact that Deepthi was subjected to cruelty/harassment in connection with demand of
additional dowry, A.1 to A.3 are also liable for the offence punishable
U/S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as it envisages and covers all A.1 to 41Page 41 of 46 SC 397-2019
A.3 and the demand is whether directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives of a bride any dowry. Thus the cumulative effect of the circumstances, pre and post-offence events are so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability Deepthi was subjected to cruelty by A.1 to A.3 within five months of her marriage in connection with demand for additional dowry and therefore the conviction for the offence punishable U/Ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is also maintainable and sustainable in law.
Statutory Presumption U/S 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act :
64.In view of the evidence of cruelty or harassment by A.1 to
A.3 for dowry even it is just and reasonable to press into service the statutory presumption laid down U/S 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and this Court presumed that A.1 to A.3 had caused the dowry death of
Deepthi. Thus, the statutory presumption U/S.113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act is available to the prosecution and it is for the accused to dispel the presumption but A.1 to A.3 miserably failed to discharge the burden and dispel the presumption. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and as against to A.1 to A.3.
RESULT :
65. In the result,
(a)A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offences punishable U/S 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act;
(b)that A.1 and A.2 are also found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are convicted U/S 235 (2) Cr.P.C; 42Page 42 of 46 SC 397-2019
(c)A.1 to A.7 are found not guilty for the alternative charge punishable U/S 306 IPC; A.3 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act;
(d)A.4 to A.7 are also found not guilty for the charge punishable U/S 304-B IPC and U/Ss. 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/S.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
(e)The bail bonds of A.4 to A.7 and the sureties shall stand cancelled after the statutory interval period subject to the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
(f)M.Os.1 to 5 as they are worthless shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.1, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of November, 2021 .
M VDigitally signed by M V RAMESH RAMESHDate: 2021.11.08 18:55:39 +0530
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE :
66.Heard A.1 to A.3 as regards to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them and A.1 to A.3 with one voice pleaded not guilty for the charges and mercy of the Court to impose minimum sentence of imprisonment. A.1 to A.3 have also stated that there is no past criminal record against them and therefore a lenient view may be taken. A.1, who is 33 years old stated that he is a B.Sc., graduate and his occupation is petty business in Garlic and Ginger, A.2, who is 55 years old stated that she is an illiterate person and doing Kirana
Business and A.3 who is 52 years old stated that she is a Daily Wager and she is residing at Koyalagudem village. A.2, A.3 have also stated that they are suffering from ailments due to age.
43Page 43 of 46 SC 397-2019
67.Having regard to the nature of charges proved, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of death of Deepthi within a span of 4 or 5 months of the marriage and since Deepthi committed suicide by hanging and soon before her death Deepthi was subjected to cruelty by A.1 to A.3 in connection with demand for additional dowry and keeping in view of the family social background of A.1 to A.3, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/A.1 to A.3 are not entitled to any lenient view or minimum sentence and therefore, they are sentenced as follows:
a)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of TEN YEARS for the offence punishable U/S 304-B IPC;
b)A.1 to A.3 are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS each for the offence punishable U/S 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; [Total fine Rs.10,000x3=Rs.30,000/-]
c)A.1 and A.2 are further sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a term of FIVE YEARS and to pay a fine of
Rs.15,000/- each idsi for a period of THREE MONTHS for the offence punishable U/S 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [Total fine
Rs.15,000x2=Rs.30,000/-].
d)All the term sentences shall run concurrently and all the default sentences shall run consecutively.
e)Out of the total fine amount realized i.e., Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is awarded to
PW.1-Danuka Shanthamma in order to meet the defraying expenses 44Page 44 of 46 SC 397-2019 incurred in the prosecution under Section 357 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., payable to her, after expiry of the appeal time.
68.It is needless to say that the accused are entitled to the statutory benefit provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C., and the remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 shall be given set-off for the term sentences. [Remand period already undergone by A.1 to A.3 :
from 25.07.2017 to 08.08.2017].
69.A.1 to A.3 are also informed their right to prefer an appeal against the judgment before the Hon’ble High Court. A.1 to A.3 are also informed of their right to claim free-legal-aid in the event of the accused doesn’t possess necessary financial means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.
VICTIMS COMPENSATION SCHEME UNDER SECTION 357-A Cr.P.C .
70.To extend the benefits of the Victim’s Compensation
Scheme U/S 357-A Cr.P.C., a copy of the judgment is directed to be transmitted to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Nalgonda to determine the eligibility, quantum of compensation and to provide suitable compensation to PW.1, being the mother of the deceased-Deepthi suffered untold misery, loss, injury, grief, as a result of the crime and since she requires rehabilitation.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of November, 2021 . M VDigitally signed by M V RAMESH RAMESHDate: 2021.11.08 18:54:59 +0530
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
NALGONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW-01 :(LW-1): Danuka Shantamma: Complainant & mother of the deceased.
45Page 45 of 46 SC 397-2019
PW-02 :(LW-2): Danuka Mangamma: Stepmotherofthe deceased. PW-03 :(LW-3): Danuka Upender: Elder brother of the deceased & circumstantial witness. PW-04 :(LW-4): Konam Sathyanarayana: Circumstanntial witness.
PW-05 :(LW-6): Srimanthula Ramulu: Relative (uncle) of the deceased & circumstantial witness. PW-06 :(LW-7): Sandyala Naga Raju: Neighbour of the deceased & circuumstantial witness. PW-07 :(LW-9): Shaik Raheem: Neighbour of the deceased & circumstantial witness. PW-08 :(LW-13): Boddepally Yadaiah: Scribed the complaint.
PW-09 :(LW-14): Mohammed Moiz: Panch for inquest & scene of offence-cum-seizuure panchanama. PW-10 :(LW-15): Chikku Poolamma: Panch for inquest & scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-11:(LW-16): Siripuram Vijayalaxmi: Panch for inquest
PW-12: (LW-17) : Bheeemrao Ambedkar: Held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW-13:(LW-19) : Dr.A.Sathyanarayana: Held autopsy
PW-14:(LW-23): K.Subbarami Reddy,: Ist Investigating Officer
PW-15:(LW-24): S.Sudhakar, SDPO: Investigating Officer.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE : -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BAHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-01:Dt:19.04.2017: Telugu written report given to the Station House Officer, Nakrekal PS (1 sheet) Ex.P-02:Dt.20.04.2017: Entire 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.7
Ex.P-03:Dt: 20.04.2017: (a) to (c) are Signatures of PW.9 on the scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama Ex.P-04:Dt: 20.04.2017: Signature of PW.10 on the scene of offfence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-05:Dt: 20.04.2017: Signature of PW.10 on Seizure panchanama.
Ex.P-06:Dt: 20.04.2017: Inquest panchanama,
Ex.P-07:Dt: 20.04.2017: Seizure panchanama.
Ex.P-08:Dt: 24.04.2017: Postmortem examination report
Ex.P-09:Dt: 11.07.2017: FSL report vide File No.TOX/1412/2017.
Ex.P-10:Dt: 08.05.2017: ExpertopinionvideEO No.49/FM/OMC-OGH/2017, Ex.P-11:Dt: 19.04.2017: FIR in Crime No.115/2017 of Nakrekal P.S 46Page 46 of 46 SC 397-2019
U/Ss.302, 498A r/w 34 IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex.P-12:Dt: 20.04.2017: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama.
Ex.P-13:--: (4) Colour Postcard size photographs of the scene of offence. Ex.P-14 :--: (6) Colour Postcard size photographs of the dead body. Ex.P-15:--: Lagna Pathrika, (1 sheet)
Ex.P-16:--: Wedding Invitation Card in Telugu and English languages Ex.P-17:-- : (3) Colour Postcard size marriage photographs.
Ex.P-18:Dt: 26.06.2017: Section Alteration Statement of PW.1 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, Ex.P-19:Dt:28.10.2017: 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet,
dt:28.10.2017.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O-1: Cotton Punjabi frock with red, white colour with black scars
M.O-2: White Bra with Black stripes
M.O-3: Black Cotton Leg-in.
M.O-4: Silk Sari with Flower design.
M.O-5: Chethan Company light orange colour plastic stool.
Digitally signed M V by M V RAMESH RAMESHDate: 2021.11.08 18:54:31 +0530
Prl.SJ : NLG