S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 1 of 48
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT SHADNAGAR.
Present:-Smt.S. Swathi Reddy, XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Shadnagar.
Dated, on this the 26th day of March, 2026.
S.C. No. 102 of 2022
(Crime No. 512 of 2020 of P.S. Shadnagar)
1 Name of the complainant The State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Shadnagar 2 Name of the accused1. Kallepally Srinivas S/o. Chandraiah, age; 27 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occp: Private Job, R/o. Duskal Village of Farooqnagar Mandal.
2. Kallepally Chandraiah S/o. Jangaiah, age: 55 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occp: Agril, R/o. Duskal Village of Farooqnagar Mandal.
3. Kallepally Yadamma W/o. Chandraiah, age: 52 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occp: Agril, R/o. Duskal Village of Farooqnagar Mandal.
4. Kallepally Naresh S/o. Chandraiah, age; 31 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occp: Agril, R/o. Duskal Village of Farooqnagar Mandal.
5. Kallepally Neeraja W/o. Naresh, age; 25 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occp: Agril, R/o. Duskal Village of Farooqnagar Mandal.
3 Offences charged ofUnder Sections 498-A r/w 34, 304-B IPC, Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Crime No.& Name of the Crime no. 512 of 2020 of P.S.Shadnagar PS
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 2 of 48 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.
6 Finding of the CourtFound guilty of A1 Found not guilty of A2 to A5 7 Sentence or order In the result, Accused no.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34, 304-B of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Further, A1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no. 2 to 5 shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.
Heard the Convict.
A1 is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act under section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for:
(a) imprisonment for a period of seven(7) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 3 of 48
(b) imprisonment for a period of one year (1) year and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
(c) imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The sentences shall held concurrently, the total fine amount of Rs.30,000/-. As seen from the record A1 was in jail from 22.07.2020 to 28.08.2020 (37) days and he is entitled for statutory benefit provided under section 428 Cr.P.C.
M.O1/Saree shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The convict informed about his right to prefer Appeal against this Judgment
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of
Telangana and he is also informed of his right to claim free Legal Aid in the event the convict does not possess to engage an Advocate to prefer an Appeal and authenticated true copy of this judgment is furnished to the convict under section 363(1) Cr.P.C.
8 Name of the Prosecution Sri.M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, counsel Addl. Public Prosecutor 9 Name of the accused Sri. M. Achutha Reddy & Allu Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused no.1 to 5 counsel
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 4 of 48
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.M. Achutha Reddy & Allu Srinivas Reddy , Counsel for accused no.1 to 5 and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T:: :
1. This is a case of Matrimonial Cruelty and Dowry Death against A1 to
A5 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shadnagar Division for the offence punishable Under Sections 498-A r/w. 34, 304-B IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant/Bommagalla
Ramulu(LW1) gave a report stating that, his third daughter Swathi @
Srija /deceased marriage was performed with Kallepally Srinivas/A1 on 17.05.2019 in Kuntla Ram Reddy Function Hall, Shadnagar and at the time of marriage complainant gave Rs. 2Lakhs net cash, one motor bike, 8 tulas of gold and household articles to A1 towards dowry. After marriage they lived happily for a period six months, then A1, A2/Chandraiah (father-in-law), A3/Yadamma (mother-in-law), A4/Naresh(brother-in-law) and A5/Neeraja(Co-sister) started harassing the deceased physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs. 10 Lakhs. After two to three months the deceased came to their house and disclosed about
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 5 of 48 the torments of A1 to A5 for additional dowry. He informed the same to
LW5/Kommmu Krishana Village Ex-sarpanch and a panchayath was conducted by calling A1 to A5 to Nandigama Village, A1 to A5 assured not to harass the deceased. On 14.07.2020 again A1 to A5 harassed the deceased and driven out his daughter from the home to bring additional dowry, on the same day A1 came and took back the deceased saying he will treat her well. On 19.07.2020 at about 06.30AM neighbours of Duskal village informed that, his daughter died by hanging. Immediately, they went to Duskal village and found her dead. The death of deceased is due to harassment of A1 to A5 and requested to take action.
3.Basing on the said report, Sri A.Sridhar Kumar, Inspector of Police (LW19) registered a case in Cr.No.512/2020, under section 304-B IPC, took up the investigation, he visited the Duskal village at the house of deceased/Swathi and shifted the dead body to CHC Shadnagar and preserved in mortuary room. Further, he sent a requisition LW16/J. Pandu,
Tahsildar of Farooqnagar Mandal with a request to visit the Government
Community Health Center, Shadnagar to hold Inquest over the dead body of deceased/Swathi as she died unnaturally within the seven years of her married life and LW10/Talari Prasad Goud taken photographs of deceased at the Scene of offence. There were no external injuries found on corpse
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 6 of 48 except black mark found around the neck. LW16/J. Pandu Tahsildar visited the CHC Shadnagar and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators LW11/Chennagalla Amrutha, LW12/S.Venkataiah, and LW13/D. Balaiah, examined and recorded the statements of
LW1/B.Ramulu, LW2/B. Kalamma, LW3/B. Narsimulu, LW4/Y. Krishna,
LW5/K. Krishna and LW6/S. Narahari and subjected the dead body to
Government Community Health Centre, Shadnagar for Postmortem
Examination, where the team of Doctors LW17/Dr. M. Surender Rao,
LW18/Dr. K. Jyothi, CAS conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased/K. Swathi and issued Postmortem Examination Report opining that, the cause of death of the deceased “ASPHYXIA DUE TO HANGING”.
On 20.07.2020 LW20/V. Surender Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Shadnagar took up the investigation of this case and visited Nandigama village, examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW5, LW7/A. Ravi,
LW8/S. Sathish, LW9/Chennagalla Chinna Narsimulu and collected wedding photos and Wedding card from LW1. LW20 visited the scene of offence situated at Duskal village, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW14/L. Narsimulu, LW15/K.
Ashok Yadav and seized one green, navy blue, white multi colour design
Saree under the cover of panchanama which was used by the deceased to
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 7 of 48 commit suicide by hanging. LW20 examined and recorded the statement of
LW6/S. Narahari.
On 22.07.2020 at 10.00 hours, on instructions of LW20, LW19 apprehended A1 to A4 at their house and produced them before LW20, on interrogation, A1 to A4 admitted the offence. Thereafter, arrested A1 to
A4 and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. A5 got
Anticipatory bail vide Crl.MP.No. 327 of 2020 in crime no. 512 of 2020 dt.
27.08.2020 and appeared before LW20 on 01.09.2020 by furnishing sureties.After completion of of investigation, LW20/V. Surender, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Shadnagar filed the charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC, Section 3 & 4 of DP
Act, 1961.
4. The learned Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar has taken cognizance for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC, Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, 1961 against A1 to A5. Since the offence under section 304-B
IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the PRC No.12 of 2020 was committed to the court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar District taken the cognizance, numbered it
as SC No.193 of 2021 and made over to the Court of II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. Further, by virtue of orders vide
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 8 of 48
ROC.No.346/E1/2021, dt. 01.06.2022 case was transferred to Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and the same was renumbered as SC No. 102 of 2022 and made over to IX Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and thereafter as per
the orders vide 1093/2023 and 26/2024-DII(B), dated 30.10.2024 of
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and as per the
proceedings of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District vide Dis.No.6283/2024, dated;06.11.2024 this case was transferred to this court on the point of jurisdiction.
5. On appearance of the accused persons, A1 to A5 were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C. and charge under sections 498-A r/w 34, 304-B of IPC,
Section 3 & 4 of DP Act -1961 were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO1.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence accused no.1 to 5 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 9 of 48 for which, they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.
8.Heard the arguments on both sides.
9.Now the point for determination is that,
“i. Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased/Kallepally Swathi
committed suicide due to Dowry harassment ? “
“ii. Whether evidence presented by the prosecution is adequate to
sustained the conclusion that, A1 to A5 are harassed the deceased for
additional dowry due to which she has committed suicide and they
are punishable under section 4 98-A r/w 34, 304-B IPC, Section 3 & 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act?”
Point:-
10. The case of the prosecution is that, deceased/Kallepally Swathi was married to A1/Kallepally Srinivas on 17.05.2019. A2 and A3 are parents of
A1, A4 is brother of A1 and A5 is wife of A4. At the time of marriage on demand of A1 to A5, the parents of the deceased had given cash of
Rs.2,00,000/-, 8 tulas of gold ornaments, one motorbike, and household articles to the accused towards dowry. After the marriage she joined the matrimonial home at Duskal village in a joint family, A1 to A5 were living
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 10 of 48 together. She lived happily with A1 for a period of six months, thereafter
A1 to A5 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs from her parents, A1 beat the deceased oftenly at the instigation of A2 to A5, about two months prior to the death of deceased, she informed LW1 to LW4 about the acts of
A1 to A5, the same was informed to the village Ex-Sarpanch LW5/Kommu
Krishna by parents of the deceased, a panchayath was conducted in the presence of LW5/Kommu Krishna, LW7/Abbi Ravi, LW8/Shivagalla
Sateesh and LW9/Chennagalla Chinna Narsimulu at Nandigama village and accused was asked not to harass the deceased and send the deceased to her matrimonial home at Duskal. After few days A1 to A5 started harassing for additional dowry and on 14.07.2020 she was driven out of house of the accused, she came to her parents house at Nandigama village. On the same day A1 went to Nandigama village and took the deceased back with assurance to take care of her. However, there is no change in attitude of A1 to A5 and they continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs, unable to bear the harassment of the accused persons vexed with her life, on 19.07.2020 at 06.30 am, the deceased committed suicide by hanging with Saree to roof pipe in the house. Therefore, the acts of A1 to A5 constitute an offence punishable
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 11 of 48 under sections 498-A r/w. 34, 304-B IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
11. In order to prove an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC:
(i). The prosecution has to prove that, the death of the woman was caused under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage.
(ii). If shall be presided by the cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives regarding dowry demands.
If the prosecution proves the above facts the court takes into consideration the legal presumption under section 113(b) of Indian
Evidence Act that the husband or relative caused the dowry death. The initial burden is on the prosecution, but once the ingredients are met the onus is on the accused to prove innocence.
12. In the present case the prosecution has examined PW1/father of the deceased who testified that, the marriage of deceased was performed on 17.05.2019 and an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs, 8 tulas of gold, one bike and household articles were presented to the accused on demand. Thereafter, the deceased/Swathi joined the company of her husband and lived happily for a period of six months. Subsequently, she was harassed mentally and physically by A1 for the purpose of additional dowry for Rs.10 Lakhs, and
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 12 of 48 the other accused also harassed her for the purpose of additional dowry.
He was informed about the harassment through his daughter about two months prior to her death when she was necked out from her in-law’s house by all the accused. A panchayath was conducted in the presence of village elders and all of them advised A1 not to harass and he agreed for the same, as such deceased rejoined the company of A1. They lived happily for two months. Again, she was harassed and sent back to her matrimonial home. About five days prior to her death, A1 came to his house and took back his daughter with a promise that he will not harass her. But, later he received phone call that she has committed suicide. The version of PW2 the mother of deceased/Swathi is also on similar lines stating that, the marriage of A1 and deceased was performed about four to five years back and cash of Rs.2 Lakhs, 8 tulas of gold, one bike and house hold articles were presented to the accused on demand. She lived happily for six months and subsequently A1 harassed her for additional dowry and the remaining accused also harassed her daughter and the same was informed to her through her deceased daughter. About 2 months prior to her death and she was necked out from the house of her in-laws, a panchayath was conducted in the presence of panchayath elders and all the accused persons are called to their village and they were advised by village elders not to harass her daughter and on promise of the accused,
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 13 of 48 she was sent back to her in-laws house. They lived happily for 2 to 3 months and again she was sent back on harassing for additional dowry.
But four days prior to death of her daughter, A1 came to house of PW1 and PW2, took back the deceased along with him, with a promise that he will not harass her, but later they received telephone that she committed suicide. The version of PW3 is also on similar lines stating that, on 17.05.2019 the marriage of A1 was performed with deceased/Swathi, he attended the marriage and dowry of Rs. 2 Lakhs, one motorbike and 8 tulas of gold, household articles were presented to the accused as dowry on their demand, they lived happily for six months and subsequently, there was harassment for additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs. A panchayath was conducted in the presence of village elder wherein A1 to A5 were advised not to harass the deceased and she was sent back to her in-law’s house, they lived happily some period and again in the month of July, the deceased was sent to her parents house with a demand of additional dowry. On the same day evening A1 came to the house of parents of deceased and took her back and after five days they received information that she committed suicide. The version of PW4 also deposed on similar lines with that of PW3 regarding the date of marriage, payment of cash, gold at the time of marriage for additional dowry, conducting of panchayath and death of the deceased.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 14 of 48
13. The version of PW5 is also ascertaining the fact of date of marriage of deceased with A1, harassment of additional dowry by A1, conducting of panchayath and committing of suicide by the deceased.
14. The version of PW6 is also that, dowry was given to A1 at the time of marriage. A1 and deceased lived happily for 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, accused persons harassed the deceased for additional dowry and she was necked from her in-law’s house, so she came to her parents house. In the presence of Ex-Sarpanch and village elders, a panchayath was held and
A1 was advised not to harass the deceased and she was sent back to her in-law’s house with A1. Prior to four days of death of deceased, she again came to her parents house stating A1 again harassed her. Later, A1 came to the house of PW1 took the deceased along with him and thereafter they received telephonic call that she has committed suicide.
15. PW7 panchayath elder testified that, the marriage of A1 with the deceased was performed on 17.05.2019, dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs in cash, 8 tulas of Gold, bike and household articles were presented as dowry, the couple lived happily for a period of 6 to 7 months, thereafter A1 harassed the deceased for the purpose of additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs, the deceased informed the same to PW1. Three months prior to the death of the deceased the talks were held in the village in the presence of PW7 and
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 15 of 48
PW5 and other village elders. A1 to A3 were present at the relevant time, elders advised A1 to A3 not to harass the deceased and deceased was taken by A1 along with him. Later, on 15.07.2020, the deceased died by hanging.
16. The version of PW8 also in similar lines stating that, dowry was given at the time of marriage of deceased and A1. Thereafter, A1 to A3 demanded for additional dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs, and deceased committed suicide due to harassment of additional dowry.
17. PW1 to PW8 are the parents and relatives of deceased and village elders testified in the similar manner as to the date of marriage, harassment for
additional dowry. However, there are discrepancies in the testimony of
witnesses as to whether A1 harassed for additional dowry or A1 to A3 harassed for additional dowry or all the accused harassed for additional dowry. It is established fact before the court that deceased committed suicide on 19.07.2020 which is supported by the testimony of panch witnesses/PW10, PW11 and panch witnesses for Crime Detail Form PW12 and PW13 and so also the evidence of the Doctor/PW14. As per the doctor’s testimony who conducted postmortem examination, he noticed ante-mortem injuries over the dead body which are :
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 16 of 48
1. U shaped ligature mark 16x3x3 cms present over the neck extending from 3 cms below the left angle of mandible towards front of the neck, above the thyroid cartilage upto 3 cms below the right angle of the mandible, reddish brown in colour.
2. Fracture of right cornua of Hyoid bone present.
On opening Head and neck, petechia hemorrhage in brain, tongue was bluish in colour, neck strictures congested underlying the ligature mark. As per postmortem report, the case of death is due to
Asphyxia due to Hanging.
18. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the death of deceased on 19.07.2020 and that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The date of marriage of A1 and deceased is also not in dispute as per the testimony of all the eye witnesses before the court, who stated that the marriage was performed on 17.05.2019. Therefore, the marriage of deceased was performed on 17.05.2019 and the death of deceased is on 19.07.2020. Therefore, the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage, attracting the essential ingredient of section 304-B of IPC. It is also categorically deposed by all the witnesses that dowry was given at the time of marriage and there was harassment for additional dowry. It is undisputed as per the oral
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 17 of 48 testimony of witnesses that A1 harassed for additional dowry of Rs.10
Lakhs and deceased was driven out of her matrimonial home about 3 months prior to her death. After the panchayath she joined the matrimonial home and she was again driven out of the matrimonial home, only 4 to 5 days prior to her death, she went along with A1 to the matrimonial home and thereafter she committed suicide. In the above circumstances, there is no iota of doubt in believing that A1 harassed the deceased for additional dowry.
19. Though the counsel for accused takes defence stating that, there is no such harassment by the accused persons, the deceased had an miscarriage due to which she committed suicide and she was at her parents house for a period of four months only because of miscarriage and there is no possibility of accused persons harassing the deceased. It is also the defence of the counsel for accused that there is delay in registering FIR and it was sent after recording of inquest panchanama and conducting of Postmortem Examination Report.
20. On scrutiny of the case record the FIR/Ex.P6 was registered on 19.07.2020 and dispatched at 2.00 PM and the same was received by the court at 06.00PM. On perusal of Inquest panchanama, Inquest panchanama was conducted on 19.07.2020 at 02.00PM. As per
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 18 of 48
Postmortem Examination Report/Ex.P5, it was conducted on 19.07.2020 at 04.00PM.
21. The Investigating Officer/PW15 evidence is that, he registered the
FIR and gave requisition to PW13 for conducting Inquest over the deceased. During cross examination he stated that, he has assisted the
Tahsildar till completion of Inquest panchanama, he has not taken the signature of the complainant in column no.14 of the FIR. Though there is delay in sending FIR to the court and he sent in evening 06.00 pm. As per the FIR, FIR was registered at 02.00 pm and Inquest Panchanama was conducted thereafter. Therefore the plea of the counsel for accused stating that, delay in sending FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution cannot be considered. Further, even if the Inquest panchanama is conducted first, it does not invalidate the case. The Inquest report is not substantive plea of evidence itself, but an auxiliary document used to verify the cause of the death. Mere delay in sending the FIR to the court or registering the FIR after Inquest or Postmortem Examination Report is not a ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
22. The other Investigation Officer/PW16 also mentioned about investigation conducted by him, wherein he has collected the Wedding phots, Wedding cards vide Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 which establish the marriage between the
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 19 of 48 parties, so also conducting of Scene of offence Panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, Seizure of MO1/Saree from the Scene of offence. Even during cross examination the Investigation Officer stated that, MO1 was seized from the room where the deceased committed suicide. However, he could not state whether A1 and A4 are living in separate portions of the same house, and he does not know whether A2 and A3 residing with A4 and not with A1, he has not collected the medical records of the deceased prior to her death. Though Investigating Officer stated that, PW5 has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he has conducted panchayath twice. So also PW6 did not depose before him that he has attended the panchayath and advised A1 not to harass the deceased, so also PW7 has not stated that A1 harassed the deceased for
additional dowry, three months prior to death of deceased, talks were held
in his village in the presence of himself, PW5 and other village elders. The above testimony by the witnesses, PW5, PW6 and PW7 are minor discrepancies and are not fatal to the case of prosecution. The crucial facts to be considered in the testimony of PW5, PW6 and PW7 is pertaining to the marriage between the parties, dowry harassment prior to death of deceased, when the above facts are mentioned by the witnesses in accordance with their 161 Cr.P.C statement, further as they are in corroboration with the testimony of the other eye witnesses, the minor
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 20 of 48 discrepancies as to whether one panchayath was conducted or two panchayaths were conducted and whether the participation of one of the witness is mentioned in his statement or not will not discredit the testimony of the witnesses. The credibility of the witness cannot be disregarded in view of the minor discrepancies.
23. However, whether A2 to A5 instigated A1 to harass the deceased for
additional dowry has to be proved by the prosecution. In the present case,
though PW1 to PW3 stated that, A2 to A5 also harassed the deceased for
additional dowry, there are no specifically individual acts of harassment
or cruelty are mentioned before the court. Omnibus allegations against all the family members are insufficient and the prosecution must prove specific acts of instigation or cruelty on demand of additional dowry for punishing A2 to A5 under section 304-B IPC or section 498-A IPC. Adding to it, during cross examination PW1 stated that, he does not know place of work of A1 and he has not enquired with regard to occupation of A1 at the time of marriage talks. Deceased was pregnant and she was treated at
Vijaya Jyothi Hospital, Shadnagar and she was also referred to
Government Maternity Hospital/Jajgi Khana from Shadnagar Hospital and she was treated as in patient for 4 to 5 days and she stayed after discharge from the hospital for three months at her parents house and A1
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 21 of 48 used to come to their house during the relevant time occasionally. It is also deposed that, after three months in the month of May, deceased was taken back by A1 and thereafter she died by committing suicide. In the above circumstances it is evident only with respect to the fact that, A1 visited the house of PW1 and PW2 while deceased was at her parents house, but A2 to A5 have not visited their house. It is also mentioned by
PW2 that deceased was not having any cell phone and it is deposed by her that, her daughter had miscarriage and thereafter she stayed in their house and after three months she rejoined the company of A1 and after some days she again returned to their house, A1 took the deceased to his house on the eve of Bonalu festival and it was their marriage day. When the deceased staying with PW1 and PW2, A1 used to visit the deceased. In the above circumstances, the possibility of harassment for additional dowry cannot be ruled out by A1 as he was visiting the deceased even during her stay at her parents house. However, it is not the case that A2 to A5 visited the house of PW1 and PW2 or that they made telephonic calls to the deceased. There is no specific individual act of cruelty or harassment stated by the witnesses with respect to A2 to A5. Further, in the evidence of independent witnesses and witnesses who conducted panchayath, there are discrepancies as to the presence of A2 to A5 in the panchayath and with regard to reporting of harassment made by A2 to A5
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 22 of 48 in the panchayath. But, there is no discrepancy as to fact that, A1 was harassing for additional dowry and he promised that he will take care of her but deceased died by committing suicide at her in-laws house. Though the counsel of accused takes defence stating that, the deceased committed suicide because of her miscarriage and not because of dowry harassment.
The point pertinent here to note is that, the doubts raised by defence as speculation rather than reasonable. The defence has not filed any document before the Court as to the reason for miscarriage. Moreover, the miscarriage has taken place three months prior to the death of the deceased and they were no other attempts of committing suicide by the deceased in the said period. The deceased committed suicide after joining her matrimonial home and this clearly indicates that the death of deceased is only because of harassment of A1.
24. As per Section 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act: When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 23 of 48
25. As per Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act: When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman has been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
26. Therefore, when prosecution established the fact of death of deceased within 7 years and dowry harassment by A1, it is for A1 to rebut the presumptions under section 113 and 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act.
27. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in support of the case, relied on the case laws:
i. Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2013 dated 03.01.2013, wherein it is held, “In the ultimate analysis we are of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to rebut presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Girija committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage in her matrimonial home. Impact of this circumstance was clearly missed by the trial court. The evidence on record establishes that Girija was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant in their matrimonial home which drove her to commit suicide. The appellant is guilty of abetment of
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 24 of 48 suicide. The High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” ii. Ram Badan Sharma vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.1493 of 204 dated 21.08.2006, wherein it is held, “In Satvir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another (2001) 8 SCC 633, this Court examined the meaning of the words "soon before her death". The Court observed that the legislative object in providing such a radius of time by employing the words "soon before her death" is to emphasize the idea that her death, should, in all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there should be a close and perceptible nexus between death and the dowry- related harassment or cruelty inflicted on the deceased.
This Court in Hira Lal & Others v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 reiterated that Section 304- B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were inserted with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry deaths. Perhaps the Legislations are outcome of public opinion and a comprehensive 91st Report on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform: Amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 " submitted on 10.8.1983 by the Law Commission of India. In the introductory chapter of the report, it is mentioned that the last few months have witnessed an alarming increase in the number of cases in which married women die in circumstances which, to say the least, are highly suspicious. In the popular mind, these deaths have come to be associated with dowry, which is why, in popular parlance, they have come to be called "dowry- deaths". Even after more than two decades of submitting the said report and enactments of new Legislations, unfortunately cases of dowry deaths are increasing. In the report, deep concern has been shown that once a serious crime is committed, detection is a difficult matter and still more difficult is successful prosecution of the offender. Crimes that lead to dowry deaths are almost invariably committed within the safe precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a member of the family; other members of the family are either guilty associates in crime, or silent but conniving witnesses to it. In any case, the shackles of the family are so strong that truth may not come out of the chains. There would be no other eye witnesses, except for members of the family. Perhaps to meet a situation of this kind, the Legislature enacted Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
In Hira Lal 's case (supra), this Court observed that the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'. The expression 'soon before' is relevant for invoking Section 304-B IPC and Section 113- B of the Evidence Act. (See also: Dhian Singh & Another v. State of Punjab (2004) 7
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 25 of 48
SCC 759, Sarojini v. State of M.P. (1993) Supp. ( 4) SCC 632, State of Karnataka v. M. V. Manjunathegowda & Another (2003) 2 SCC 188, Muthu Kutty & Another v. State (2005) 9 SCC 113, Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2006) 1 SCC 463, Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar ( 2005) 2 SCC 388 and State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh & Others (1991) 3 SCC 1).
On consideration of the law as crystallized in the decided cases of this Court and evidence on record, we are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants. We, therefore, concur with the view of the courts below and affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellants. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.” iii. Smt.Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana on 13.11.1990, wherein it is held, “The view of the.High Court that Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C are mutually exclusive Is not correct. Sections 304-B and 498-A cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that "cruelty" is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of "cruelty".
In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of "cruelty" but having regard to the common background to these offences, the meaning of "cruelty or harassment" will be the same as found in the explanation to Section 498-A under which "cruelty" by itself mounts to an offence and is punishable. Under Section 304-B, it is the "dowry death" that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A and the husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to "cruelty" any time after the marriage. Further a person charged and acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without charge being there, if such a case, is made out. But from the point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to frame charges under both the Section and if the case is established they can be convicted under both the Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in view of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304-B. [682D-H; 683A]
11. In the instant case, the High Court has not held that the prosecution has not established cruelty on the part of the appellants but on the other hand it considered the entire evidence and held that the element of cruelty which is also an essential of Section 304-B I.P.C. has been established. In these circumstances, therefore, the mere acquit- tal of the appellants under Section 498-A I.P.C. makes no difference for the purpose of this case. [682C-D] 2. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material to indicate even remotely that it was a case of natural death. It is nobody's case that it Was accidental death. In the result it was an unnatural death; either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, Section 304-B is attracted. Therefore, the
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 26 of 48 prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B beyond all reasonable doubt. ” iv. Gurumeet Singh Vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.1731 of 2010, dt. 28.05.2021, wherein it is held,
Section 304-B(1) , IPC defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Further, Section 304-B(2) , IPC provides punishment for the aforesaid offence. This Court, in the recent judgment of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010 summarised the law under Section 304-B , IPC and Section 113B , Evidence Act as under:
“i. Section 304-B , IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand.
ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B , IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B , Evidence Act operates against the accused.
iii. The phrase “soon before” as appearing in Section 304-B , IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives.
iv. Section 304-B , IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The reason for such non categorization is due to the fact that death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” can, in cases, be homicidal or suicidal or accidental.”
10. In the present case, admittedly, the marriage between the deceased and the accused- appellant took place on 23.11.2004, and the death of the deceased occurred in 2008 after she consumed poison in her matrimonial home. Therefore, the first two ingredients as to death under otherwise than ‘normal circumstances’ within seven years of marriage stand satisfied.
v. Virender Pal @ Vipin vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2015, dt. 15.05.2025, wherein it is held,
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 27 of 48 “37. The trial Court as well as the High Court have distinguished the case of the acquitted accused persons from that of the accused-appellant by assigning cogent reasons. The accused-appellant, being the husband of deceased-Punita, was under a greater obligation, both moral as well as legal, to ensure the well-being of his wife, but he failed to do so. He was primarily responsible for the demands of money being made from the deceased and her maternal family members.
38. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the demand of money was being made so that the accused-appellant could secure a job. The deceased called her brother Satender Kumar (PW-3) on the date of incident at 07:45 am and complained that she was being maltreated/beaten by her matrimonial family members including the accused-appellant and expressed a grave danger to her life. Hence, there is ample evidence on record establishing that deceased- Punita was being treated with cruelty in her matrimonial home owing to the demand of dowry soon before her death.
39. Consequently, all the ingredients required to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC against the accused-appellant are made out from the evidence available on record.
40. As a result, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial Court and later affirmed by the High Court. The impugned judgments and orders i.e., judgment and order of sentence dated 26th May, 2011 and 28th May, 2011, passed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat and judgment dated 15th May, 2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.”
The case laws filed by the prosecution state that the court has to carefully scrutiny the evidence filed by the prosecution especially in cases of dowry deaths keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. The provision is to protect the woman from dowry harassment. In the present case, the essential ingredients of 304-B IPC are established by the prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Courts in the above judgments.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 28 of 48
28. On the other hand, the counsel for accused relied on the case laws:
i. Nelaturi Chandra Shekar vs State of A.P. reported in 2018(2) ALD
Crl. 575 in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2011, dt. 22.02.2018 of
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telanana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held, “B ut the material evidence, which is of P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7, suffers from several inconsistencies and is not sufficient to invoke the presumption adumbrated under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, in order to throw the burden on the appellant. Hence, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2011 passed in S.C. No. 391 of 2009 by the III Additional
Sessions Judge, Guntur”
The above citation is pertaining to fact that when there are several inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, it is not sufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. As discussed earlier in the present case, there are no such inconsistencies in the case of prosecution.
ii.Mukkamala Achutharamaiah Vs State of A.P. reported in 2014 (1)
ALD Crl. 942 A.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2007, dt. 05.02.2014
of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, wherein it is held, “32. pertinent to note that one of the essential ingredients in Section 113B of the Evidence Act and 304B IPC, is the concerned woman must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 16, it is obvious that they have not seen the deceased since two years prior to her death. Even if it is assumed that the appellant-A1 used to harass the deceased for dowry amount, the attitude of the parents of the deceased in not seeing their daughter for a period of two years is quite unnatural. The prosecution did not examine any of the neighbours to establish as to whether there were any disputes between A1 and the deceased soon before her death. On a mere fact of death of a woman in the house of the accused, presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act against the accused cannot
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 29 of 48 be drawn. There must be proximity or live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death. The evidence of all the material witnesses is only a circumstantial evidence. The circumstances stated by them do not point out the guilt of the appellant-A1 by disclosing any proximity and link between the cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. Apart from that, the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution.
33. In view of above circumstances, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to draw any presumption under Section 1138 of the Evidence Act against the appellant-A1. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under Section 304B IPC are not sustainable.
34. Insofar as the other offences viz., Section 498A IPC and 3(1) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the evidence of P.W. 16 in her cross-examination that her parents never agreed to give Ac. 3.00 of land to the deceased nor they gave any income from that land, and her parents gave 20,000/- towards cost of produce, falsifies the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 with regard to the alleged demand of dowry and payment of dowry. There is no cogent evidence on record with regard to the any harassment by the accused. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 498A IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 3(1) and 4 of D.P. Act are also not sustainable”.
In the present case, the harassment was soon before the death of the deceased. As per the testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that, there is dowry harassment and deceased was driven out of her matrimonial home and stayed at parents house till five days prior to her death. Even thereafter when she was taken to matrimonial home she died by committing suicide under suspicious circumstances and further the reason for her death by committing suicide is not explained by the defence.
As such it is fit case to draw presumption under section 113(b) of Indian
Evidence Act.
iii. Shaik Janni Pasha & another Vs State of A.P. reported in 2017 (2)
ALD Crl.1034 in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2011, dt. 22.02.2018 of
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 30 of 48
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telanana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held, “Since we have acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC, we need to consider whether the appellants are liable for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. On a careful analysis of the provisions of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and as explained by the Supreme Court in Bakshish Ram MANU/SC/0243/2013: (2013) 4 SCC 131 (supra), it is evident that in order to convict a person for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was cruelty or harassment of the victim "soon before the occurrence". The phrase "soon" must be construed as proximate in point of time to the death. Even if any occurrence has taken place in a distant past, the same cannot be brought under the expression 'soon before the occurrence'. While there is no credible evidence to show that there was any harassment of the deceased by the appellants at any point of time, in our opinion, the prosecution has singularly failed to establish that such harassment even if taken place earlier was not caused by the appellants 'soon' before the death of the deceased. In our opinion, the Court below has erroneously held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304-B IPC. For the very same reasons and the findings, the convictions and sentences imposed against the appellants for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Act, are also not sustainable”
The above case law is that dowry harassment shall be soon before the occurrence of the death of the deceased and the time gap between the harassment and her death shall be proximate. As discussed earlier, in the present there is no such huge gap and the dowry harassment soon is
before the occurrence of the death of the deceased.
iv. Middela Parvaiah Vs. State of A.P reported in 2017 (1) ALD Crl.769
in Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of 2010,dt.16.08.2016 of Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telanana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held, “10. The most crucial aspect which further supports and provides a ring of truth to the case of the defence is also evident from the contents of the FIR at Column No. 15 wherein the date and time of dispatch to the Court were mentioned as 16.07.2005 at 01:30 PM. If one goes by the corrected times mentioned in the first page of the FIR, they indicate that the first information was received at 01:45 PM and the crime was regis-tered immediately thereafter. Therefore, the content of the FIR showing that the FIR was despatched to the Court at 01:30 P.M. that is, even before the crime was registered at 01.45 P.M lays bare the falsity of the prosecution case. Even in Exhibit P1 report said to have been given by PWI
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 31 of 48 also the time at which it was re-ceived was corrected by applying white fluid. It appears that the time of receipt of Exhibit PI might have been originally mentioned as between 04.30 and 05.00 PM or so as per the version of PWI, who lodged the report; but, later it was corrected as 13.45 hours by manipulation and after applying white fluid. Even in the last page of the FIR dealing with the endorsement about registration of the crime on receipt of Exhibit Pl. report, the time was altered to 1:45 PM after applying white fluid. The consistency in the correction of the time at all relevant places in the crucial documents is self explanatory about the falsity of the case. Further. in Exhibit P3, scene of offence Panchanama, the place intended for mentioning the time was left blank. When, in the report of PW1 under Exhibit P1, PWI categorically stated about the occurrence in the presence of PW3 and another and that the alleged attack with an axe on the deceased by the alleged sole accused took place at the time when PW3, the deceased and LW4, Middela Sailu, were taking tea, there is no reason for the police officer who registered the crime to mention along with the name of the accused, the names of two other accused, Jinka Narayana and Middela Ramulu, in the Column of the FIR dealing with the names of suspects/accused. This aspect also shows that there was manipulation of truth and suppression of material facts and the said aspect casts a deep-seated shadow of doubt on the whole of the prosecution case.
11. Another important aspect of the matter is that the distance between the police station and the Court could be covered by one hour, as per the evidence brought on record. The endorsement of the Officer of the Court would show that Exhibit P7, FIR, was received by the Court at 10:00 PM. Had the first information been really received at 01:45 P.M and the case was registered and the FIR was issued and despatched to the Court promptly, the FIR ought to have been received by the Court much earlier. But that is not so. This cir- cumstance as contended by the defence clearly suggests that the crime might have been registered and the FIR might have been issued only after 03:30 P.M that is, at or about 04.00 or 04.30 P.M or so but, the times mentioned in the first information report and other records were manipulated to show that the crime was registered at 01:45 P.M without any delay. Above all, PWI in his examination in chief categorically stated that on receiving telephonic information about the attack on his father, he went along with his family mem- bers to Banswada hospital about at 03:30 PM and that LW4, Middela Sailu, and PW3, Surampally Narayana, who were present at the hospital, informed him on his enquiry with them that the deceased. PW3 and LW4, Middela Sailu, were sitting in front of the medical shop of PW6 at about 12:00 noon and that the accused beat the deceased with an axe on the head of the deceased. He further stated in his cross-examination that he lodged a complaint between 04:30 to 05:00 PM. However, as already noted the manipu-lated records would show as if Exhibit P1 report was received by the police officer at 13:45 hours and that the crime was registered at the same time. PW2, the brother of PW1, also stated that PWI came to the hospi-tal at about 03:30 PM and that he had narrated the incident to PWI as disclosed to him by his mother LW2. Sanghi Bhoodevi. Therefore, PW1 who is employed elsewhere and who came directly to the hospital came to know about the incident only at 03:30 PM. As such, there is no prospect of PWI lodging a report by 01:45 PM at the police station. Even in this report, Exhibit P1, the time of occurrence is corrected by over writing. This portion of evidence of the material witnesses who are the children of the deceased, would reveal that the police version of the prosecution case that Exhibit P1, report, was received from PW1 at 13.45 hours and that the crime was registered by 01:45 P.M (13:45 hours) is far from truth and cannot be accepted. If that be so, the inquest held at 02.00 P.M, and the investigation done and the evidence collected even before the re-ceipt of the report
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 32 of 48 and the registration of crime is rendered illegal and untrustworthy. Hence, the evidence analysed supra and the circumstances of the case clearly expose that the entire case was a manipulation of the police and that the sole witness who was examined before the Court by citing him as one of the eye-witnesses, is in deed not an eye witness and his services were pressed into service after the inquest was held and after the time of report and the time of registration of crime are manipulated. For all the above stated reasons, we hold that the prosecution case implicating the accused is shrouded in suspicion and is untrust-worthy and that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in the present case, there are no other circumstances as in the above case law, except the delay of reaching of FIR to the Court and it is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
v. Bheemgonda and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in
2017 (1) ALD (Crl).93 in Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2010,
dt.16.03.2016 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the State of Telanana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held, “11. We are conscious of the fact that delay in lodging the F.I.R. will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution in every case. The totality of the facts and circumstances of the case has to be taken into consideration before mulcting its consequences to the version of the prosecution. In the instant case, the incident took place between 6.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence, Ex. P-1 report was lodged at 10.00 p.m., the same was registered and express F.I.R. was issued, which was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate through a Police Constable at 09.50 a.m. on the next day. The purpose of forthwith communication of a copy of F.I.R. to the Magistrate is to check the possibility of its manipulation. The delay in transmitting the F.I.R. to the Magistrate is linked to the lodging of the F.I.R. One of the external checks against antedating and ante-timing an F.I.R. is the time of its dispatch to the Magistrate and of its receipt by the Magistrate. The dispatch of a copy of F.I.R. forthwith ensures that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the F.I.R.”
However, it is to be considered that in the present case, there is no chance of manipulation in the FIR as there is no dispute by the parties as to death of deceased and further the above citation is not pertaining to case under section 304-B IPC.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 33 of 48 vi. Narspuram Balaiah vs. State of A.P. reported in 2016(2) ALD Crl.331
in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2010 and 1474 of 2009, dt.23.02.2016
of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telanana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is held, “In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0276/1972: AIR 1973 SC 501, H.R. Khanna, J, has highlighted the importance of the FIR in a criminal case. It was held that FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and that the importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused, that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence and that delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. It was further held that on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and that it is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained”
The above case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as there is no dispute as to cause of death is by suicide.
vii. Ramaiah @ Rama vs. State of Karnataka in 2015(1) ALD Crl.196 in
Criminal Appeal No.1671 of 2011, dt.07.08.2014 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, wherein it is held, “Presumption as to dowry death: When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would demonstrate that to attract the presumption as to dowry death stated in the aforesaid provision, it is necessary to show that soon before her death, she had been subjected by such persons to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. When this essential ingredient has not been established in the present case, the question of drawing any presumption by invoking of the aforesaid provision would not arise..”
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 34 of 48 viii. Bajnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2017(1) ALD Crl.23 S.C in Criminal Appeal No.1097 of 2016,
dt.18.11.216 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “The facturm of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code against them..” ix.Major Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 2015(2) ALD Crl.617 SC in Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2012 dated 08.04.2015, wherein it is held that, “..But the fact remains that deceased-Karamjith Kaur died within 2 ½ years of marriage otherwise under normal circumstnaces. As pointed out earlier, in the cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show that “soon before the occurrence” deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In the absence of proof that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death”, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.
In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under section 304-B Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of section 304-B of IP and the conviction of the Appellant under section 304-B IPC is liable to be set aside.” x. Sher Singh @ Partapa vs. State of Haryana in 2015(2) ALD Crl.362
SC in Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2011, dt.09.1.2015 of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a 'dowry death' has occurred, namely,
(i) that the death of a woman has been caused in abnormal circumstances by her having been burned or having been bodily injured, (ii) within seven years of a marriage, (iii) and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (iv) in connection with any demand for dowry and (v) that the cruelty or harassment meted out to her continued to have a causal connection or a live link with the demand of dowry. We are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 35 of 48 heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.” “We have not lost sight of the fact that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her suicide and that only extraordinary and overwhelming factors would have driven her to take her life along with that of her unborn child. The fact remains that she did so. What motivated or compelled her to take this extreme and horrific step will remain a mystery, as we are not satisfied that the prosecution has proved or even shown that she was treated with such cruelty, connected with dowry demands, as led her to commit suicide. In the normal course dowry demands are articulated when the marriage is agreed upon and is certainly reiterated at the time when it is performed and such demands continue into a couple of years of matrimony. In normal course, if a woman is being tortured and harassed, she would not remain reticent of this state of affairs and would certainly repeatedly inform her family. This is specially so before she takes the extreme step of taking her own life. Added to this are the inconsistencies and contradictions between the statements of PW4 and PW7 with regard to the panchayat and the presence of and knowledge of Gurdip Singh. It is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not shown/presented and or proved even by preponderance of probabilities that the deceased had been treated with cruelty emanating from or founded on dowry demands. It is in the realm of a possibility that the ingestion of aluminium phosphate may have been accidental.” xi. Manohar lal vs. State of Haryana reported in 2014 ALD (2) Crl.1010
S.C. in Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2009, dt.1.07.2014 of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “20. In the present case, from the statement of PW.1 it appears that the death took place within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, death of the deceased was due to burning i.e. not in normal circumstances. We have to see now whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record.
21. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused Appellant was charge-sheeted Under Sections 498A and 304B Indian Penal Code but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused Under Section 498A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.” xii. Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(2) ALD Crl.811
S.C. in Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2004 and 1411 of 2010 (Arising out
of SLP (Crl.)No.4389 of 2004), dt.03.08.2010 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, wherein it is held, “In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors, MANU/SC/0296/2000: (2000) 5 SCC 207, this Court cautioned that in cases where accusations of dowry deaths are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 36 of 48 doubt and by mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. In the aforesaid case, this Court further observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.” xiii. Shindo vs. Sawinder Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab reported
in 212(1) ALD Crl.652 S.C. in Criminal Appeal No.1902 of 2010
dt.31.03.2011 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “We also notice that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. Undoubtedly in a case of a dowry death under Section 304B, a presumption of Section 1138 does arise against the accused. However, the presumption is relateable to the fact that the prosecution must first spell out the ingredients of the offence and then only can a presumption arise. In the present case we find that the death was an unnatural one and had taken place within seven years of the marriage but the third ingredient that any demand for dowry had been made soon before the death has not been proved. In this view of the matter the presumption under Section. 113B of the evidence cannot be raised. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the judgment/order of the High Court.” xiv. Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019(2) ALD
Crl.710 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 2012 dt.07.08.2019 of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “13. In Major Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0407/2015: (2015) 5 SCC 201, the Court disbelieved the prosecution's story for the reason that no Independent witnesses were examined, even though, the witnesses deposed that the Members of Panchayats were informed about the harassment.
14. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the statement of PW3 Sohan Lal-father and PW4 Rajbir-brother of the deceased which has been made basis of conviction by courts below. However, we find that such statements are not sufficient to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty relating to demand of dowry soon before her death in the absence of independent evidence though available but not examined. A memorandum Ex. PE/1 dt. 25.01.1992 was relied upon and said to be executed by the in-laws of the deceased in the presence of members of Panchayat. But none of the Panchayat Members have been examined to prove the settlement arrived at. Therefore, the oral statements cannot be relied upon in view of the letters produced by the prosecution.” xv. S.Anil Kumar vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014(1) ALD
(Crl.)372 (SC) in Criminal Appeal No.937 of 2006 dt.03.07.2013 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held,
“Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial court, it was not open to the High Court to convict accused No. 1 on presumption referring to Section 113-A or 113-
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 37 of 48
B of the Evidence Act. The presumption of innocence of the accused being primary factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner.” xvi. M.Surender Reddy vs. State of Telangana vide Criminal Appeal No.953 and 860 of 2016 dated 10.12.2025, wherein it is held, “46.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad v. State of M.P.2 held that benefit of doubt to the appellants having particular regard to the fact that except for certain bald statements made by prosecution witnesses alleging that the victim had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, there is no other evidence to prove that the victim committed suicide on account of cruelty and harassment to which she was subjected just prior to her death, which, in fact, are the ingredients of the evidence to be led in respect of Section 113- B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in order to bring home the guilt against an accused under Section 304-B of IPC. It further held that in order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the woman concerned. It also further held that no charges were framed against the Appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the evidence led in order to prove the same for the purposes of Section 304-B of IPC was related to a demand of dowry.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a judgment in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder v. State of W.B. held that in order to bring home a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry.”
In the present case it is established that the Dowry harassment is soon before the death of the deceased and the said case laws are not applicable to this case.
29.Therefore, in view of oral testimony of the witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution, prosecution could bring home the fact that, the marriage of A1 and deceased was performed on 17.05.2019
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 38 of 48 and death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage and there is dowry harassment by A1. Accordingly, the prosecution has discharged its burden by establishing before the Court that the suicide was committed by the deceased within seven years of the marriage and there is dowry harassment by A1, from the time of her marriage and even thereafter panchayathas were also conducted with respect to such dowry harassment. Accordingly, considering the presumptions under sections 113, 113(b) of Indian Evidence Act, the Court believes that the prosecution has adduced cogent, consistent, reliable and legally acceptable evidence to prove the charges brought against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such A1 has committed an offence under section 304-B IPC. The accused in order prove his innocence has not filed any evidence before the court as discussed earlier. Defence taken by the accused is also not worth believable. All the prosecution witnesses categorically testified in support of the case of prosecution leaving no iota of doubt as to the innocence of
A1. Therefore, prosecution successfully established the guilt of A1 under section 304-B of IPC. But there is no clear evidence as to the offence of 304-B of IPC made out against A2 to A5.
30.As per Section 498-A of IPC: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 39 of 48 imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Further the Counsel for accused relied on the case laws:
i.Vipin Jaiswal vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in 2013(1) ALD Crl.967
S.C in Criminal Appeal No.1431 of 2007, dt.13.03.2013 of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held, “In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the Appellant) and Ext. D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the Appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, Indian Penal Code has been made out by the prosecution..”
In the present case the deceased has committed suicide in view of dowry harassment and so also driven the deceased out of the home twice and conducting of panchayaths with respect to dowry harassment clearly
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 40 of 48 establishes the offence under section 304-B and 498-A IPC and cannot be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the cruelty under section 498-A IPC.
In the present case, the facts established by the prosecution attract 498-A of IPC as prosecution could bring home the fact that, the deceased committed suicide in view of dowry harassment made by A1 and therefore prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused under section 498-A of IPC and as prosecution could not prove dowry harassment by A2 to A5. Prosecution failed to establish guilt of A2 to A5 under section 498-A of IPC.
31.The prosecution case is also that A1 to A5 are punishable under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
Penalty for giving or taking dowry:-If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable for with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 41 of 48
As per section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
Penalty for demanding dowry:- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
As per section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act:
Definition of '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.
32. In the present case it is proved that, A1 was harassing for dowry of Rs.10
Lakhs. Therefore, A1 is punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and prosecution could not prove dowry harassment by A2 to A5 as such prosecution has not made out offence under section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act against A2 to A5.
33. But, as to the fact of taking dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs in cash, motor bike, 8 tulas of gold and household articles. The court observes that, the testimony of witnesses is amount of Rs.2 Lakhs in cash, motor bike, 8
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 42 of 48 tulas of gold and household articles is presented on demand of A1. It is not mentioned as to whom it is paid and so also there is no material evidence filed before the Court to prove such payment of cash, gold or motor bike, except oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. Further, PW3 deposed during cross examination that, the marriage of deceased was performed as per their caste customs. As per their customs, the expenses for clothings of bride will be bore by bridegroom and expenses for clothing of bridegroom will be bore by bride and expenses of marriage is divided between two parties. Kuntla Ramireddy Function Hall is big Function Hall.
The expenses of Function Hall is two lakhs and both parties spent other expenses like food, decoration, videography. He along with A4 went for booking the Function Hall. All the marriage expenses were born by both parties to marriage equally.
34. PW6, who to fixed the marriage alliance between the parties deposed during the cross-examination that, generally, prior to marriage there will be talks with regard to purchase of clothes of the bride by bridegroom side and purchase of clothes of bridegroom by bride side and also that, he cannot say the description of gold ornaments of 8 tulas which were presented to A1. He do not know whether said 8 tulas were given to the deceased by way of ornaments. He was not present at the time of purchase
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 43 of 48 of bike and also gold. It is true that, the vehicle might have purchased in the name of PW1 or A1.
35. Adding to it, PW7 also deposed that, he do not know what were the ornaments presented to the bride at the time of marriage. The said 8 tulas of gold was agreed for bride. Therefore, the above testimony of prosecution witnesses during cross examination also creates doubt in the mind of the court as to whether the payments were made in view of their contribution for marriage celebration and the gold was presented to the bride as
Sreedhana or by the demand of A1. It is also not clear as to whether the motor bike stands in the name of A1 or PW1. In view of the discrepancies as to giving and taking of cash, gold, motor bike and household articles in the form of dowry on demand of A1 to A5, the prosecution has not made out case against accused persons under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Accordingly, the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of A1 to
A5 under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the prosecution could successfully bring home guilt of A1 under sections 304-B, 498-A of
IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is convicted for the above offences.
36. In the result, Accused no.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34, 304-B of IPC, Section 3 and 4
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 44 of 48 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235(1)
Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted under section 235(1)
Cr.P.C. Further, A1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no. 2 to 5 shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the Open Court on this the 26 th day of March 2026.
Sd/-
XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
R.R. DISTRICT, AT SHADNAGAR.
Quantum of Sentence
1) Heard the Convict on quantum of sentence. He has submitted that he has old aged parents who are suffering with ill-health, he has not committed any offence and a lenient view may be taken while imposing the sentence against him.
2) The punishment under section 304-B IPC is minimum imprisonment of seven (7) years which can extend to life imprisonment and fine. The punishment under section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 45 of 48 may extent to three (3) years and shall also be liable for fine. The punishment under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is punishment for imprisonment which shall not be less than six (6) months and which may extend to two (2) years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-.
3) Considering the plea of the accused, the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is hereby passing the following sentence:
In the result, A1 is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act under section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for:
(a) imprisonment for a period of seven(7) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
(b) imprisonment for a period of one year (1) year and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
(c) imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 46 of 48
4) The sentences shall held concurrently, the total fine amount of
Rs.30,000/-. As seen from the record A1 was in jail from 22.07.2020 to 28.08.2020 (37) days and he is entitled for statutory benefit provided under section 428 Cr.P.C.
5) M.O1/Saree shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The convict informed about his right to prefer Appeal against this Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and he is also informed of his right to claim free Legal Aid in the event the convict does not possess to engage an Advocate to prefer an Appeal and authenticated true copy of this judgment is furnished to the convict under section 363(1) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the Open Court on this the 26 th day of March 2026.
Sd/-
XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
R.R. DISTRICT, AT SHADNAGAR.
Appendix of evidence [Witnesses examined] For Prosecution:- For defence:-
PW1: B. Ramulu -None- PW2: Kalamma PW3: B. Narsimhulu PW4: Y. Krishnaiah PW5: Komu Krishna
S.C.No. 102 of 2022 Page No. 47 of 48
PW6: Abbi Ravi PW7: Shivagalla Satish
PW8: Chennagalla Chinna Narsimulu PW9: K Prasad Goud PW10: Chennagalla Amrutha
PW11:Dasari Balaiah PW12:Kavali Ashok Yadav PW13:J. Pandu, Tahsildar PW14:Dr. M. Surender Rao, Asst. Professor PW15: A. Sridhar Kumar, Inspector of police PW16: V. Surender, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shadnagar & Investigating Officer Exhibits marked For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Report given PW1 to the Police. Ex.P2: Photographs of the deceased ( four in number) Ex.P3: Inquest proceedings Ex.P4: Signature of PW12 in Crime Detail Form. Ex.P5:Postmortem Examination of Report (including requistion) Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Wedding Photographs Ex.P8: Wedding Card
For Defence: -Nil-
Material Objects Marked.
MO1: Saree
Sd/-
XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
R.R. DISTRICT, AT SHADNAGAR.