APHC010058032018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 378 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 29-12-2017 passed in SC.No.45 of 2014 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Between: Saina Venkat Rao @ Venugopalarao, S/o. Adivayya, Aged 32 Palli, Meelagramapadu (V). H/o. Sainipeta District, Through Saina Adivayya, S/o. Chinnayya, aged 71 the accused. years, Caste by Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam years. Father of ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED N0.1 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by the Public Hyderabad. Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : APHC010058032018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 378/2018 Between: 1.SAINA VENKAT RAO @ VENUGOPALARAO, MEELAGRAMAPADU (V), H/O.SAINIPETA, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH SAINA ADIVAYYA, S/O.CHINNAYYA, AGED 71 YEARS, FATHER OF THE ACCUSED. ...APELLANT AND ESTATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to prefer this memorandum of criminal appeal against the judgment dated 29-12-2017 passed in S.C.No. 45 of 2014 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta convicting him for offence u/s. 304-b, 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years under sec. 498-A and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) in default of payment he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years of offence punishable under sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1981 and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one more year and further is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for offence punishable under sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and also sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year more, on the following among another grounds of appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and fine imposed on the appellant/accused in judgment in SC.No.45 of 2014 dated 29-12-2017 by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta and enlarge the appellant/accused on bail,'pending final disposal of this appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner/appellant/accused in CrI.Appeal. No. 378 of 2018 against Judgment dated 29.12.2017 in SC No. 45 of 2014 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Sompeta pending before this Hon'ble Court by granting parole for one month on humanitarian grounds to attend Funeral of his.Father who expired on 17.08.2019 and perform his last rituals as son, in the interest of justice and equity and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2023 . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 378 of 2018, on the ground of serving five years of sentence and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.PS PSURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Judgment: 3 APHC010058032018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AWIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 378/2018 JUDGMENT: {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.45 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District is the appellant. He along with his mother-Accused No.2 were tried by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge under the following charges: First charge was under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Second charge was under Section 498-A of Indian penal Code, 1$60 Third charge was under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Fourth charge was under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Substance of the charges is that, both the accused have taken cash of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, one two wheeler besides bridal articles worth about Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage of the appellant with one Saina Swapna (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) on 08.05.2009 and thereafter. 2. 4 % ! both the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and on 05.05.2013, at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and thereafter committed suicide by hanging herself with a ‘chunny’ to a hook of the slab in the house of the accused, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for TIFE’. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of year. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. one year. one 5 Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.2 of all the charges. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, as follows: 4. Both the accused are residents of Meelagarampadu village, H/o Sainipeta, Palasa Mandal. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased respectively and they are residents of Rajam village. P.Ws. 3 to 7 are also residents of the same village. The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was performed on 08.05.2009 as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage, P.Ws. 1 and 2 gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, one two wheeler and household articles worth of Rs.50,0D0/- After the marriage, the deceased joined the matrimonial home and the couple blessed with a son. They lived happily for a period of two years. Thereafter, both the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty both physically and mentally, demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- frOm her parents’ house. The deceased informed the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. The matter was placed before the elders, P.Ws.3 to 7, who advised both the accused and the deceased to live amicably. In spite of the same, the accused did not stop their harassment. Having no other go, the deceased decided to end her life by committing suicide. (ii) While so, on 05.03.2013 at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased consumed poisonous substance available in the house and thereafter, went to V.— 6 the first floor, where she got vomiting, then she committed suicide by hanging herself with a chunny to a hook of the slab and died. On the same day, at about 6.00 P.M., P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Police Station and gave a report. (iii) P.W. 13-Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, received report-Ex.P5 from P.Ws.1 and 2 and registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2013 under Sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.PII is the F.I.R. P.W. 14-Inspector of Police, Kasibugga, received copy of FIR from P.W.13 and visited the scene of offence at about 7:00 P.M. He shifted the dead body to Community Health Centre, Palasa. He addressed a letter to Mandal Executive Magistrate, Palasa to conduct inquest over the dead body. (iv) On 06.03.2013 at about 8:00 A.M., P.W.-16-Tahsildar, Palasa held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.9 & 11. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P7. (v) On the morning of 06.03.2013, P.W. 14-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 3 under the cover of scene observation report-Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He also photographed the scene, marked as Ex.P13. At the inquest, P.W. 14 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6. After completion of inquest, P.W. 14 sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination thorough corpse constable-P.W. 17. »■,—. 7 (Vi) P.W. 10 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, I Palasa conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the case of death was due to ‘Cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia and Vasogenic shock secondary to hanging and Acute Cyhalotrin poison’. P.W. 14 filed a memo adding Section 304-B I PC. Thereafter, P.W. 15-Deputy Superintendent of Police,' Kasibugga took up further investigation on 08.03.2013. He visited the scene of offence, examined P.Ws.1 to 8, but he did not record their statements, as they have stated the same things, as stated before P.W.14. On 09.03.2013 at about 11:00 A.M., (vii) P.W.15 arrested both the accused. On 14.03.2013, he forwarded the Material Objects (M.Os) to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. FSL report is marked as Ex.P14. After receiving ail the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked EXs.P1 to P14 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, Exs.DI and D2-portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 were marked. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence that emerged against them from ' the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8 % Heard Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence record. 8. on 9. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are none other than the parents of the deceased, in their evidence, specifically stated that the marriage took place between the appellant and deceased on 08.05.2009 and at the time of marriage, they have given an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, one two wheeler and household articles worth about Rs.50,000/- Even the independent witnesses- P.Ws.3 to 7 have also stated about payment of dowry, two wheeler and household articles worth about Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage. The ’ evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws.3 to 7 with regard to payment of dowry and other articles at the time of marriage. Right from the stage of Ex.P1, the prosecution version is consistent with regard to payment of dowry and other articles. 10. So far as the suicide is concerned, P.W.1 in his evidence has specifically stated that on 05.03.2013, between 10:30A.M to 11:00 A.M., he heard the cries of the deceased. On hearing the same, he went to the first floor and found Accused Nos.1 and 2 tying a chunny around the neck of the deceased and both of them were pulling it. He further stated that Accused No.1 pushed P.W.1 out. Immediately, P.W.1 cried aloud, thereafter, he found the deceased died. P.W.2 in her evidence also stated that she came to know 9 through P.W.1 that both the accused killed the deceased by strangulating'her with M.0.1-chunny. But the version of prosecution in the charge sheet is that the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and went to the first floor and vomited and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling hook with M.0.1. P.Ws. 1 and 2, in their over enthusiasm, went to the extent of saying that both the accused strangulated the deceased to death, but it is nobody’s case. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be accepted to the extent that both the accused killed the deceased. 11. Coming to the harassment meted out by the appellant to the deceased is concerned, the evidence of independent witnesses, P.Ws. 3 to 7, is consistent. P.Ws. 3 to 7 have categorically stated in their evidence that quite a number of times, they have convened Panchayat meetings between the accused and the deceased. These witnessed also stated that in December, 2012 also, they convened meeting between the accused and the deceased. P.Ws.3 to 7 advised the couple to live amicably without any disputes. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 also shows that deceased committed suicide. The medical evidence adduced through P.W.10 coupled with Post Mortem Certificate-Ex.P9 established that the deceased committed suicide. As such, it is not a case of ‘Homicide’ and it is a case of ‘Suicide’. However, the deceased died in unnatural circumstances within a period of seven years from the date of marriage in the house of accused. But no explanation has been coming forward from the accused as to how the deceased met with unnatural 10 O death in his house. Though the deceased died between 10:00 A.M and 11:00 A.M., the accused did not choose to give any report to the police, as such, the conduct of accused in keeping quiet, having seen the dead body, can also be presumed that they used to harass the deceased. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 is consistent with regard to the harassment meted out by the appellant towards the deceased.' 12. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C and'Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. With regard to the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand\ He contended that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge imposed maximum penalty prescribed under Section 304-B IPC, though a minimum sentence of seven years is prescribed. He further contended that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge for awarding maximum sentence. 14., We have perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment at paragraph No.24 held as follows: The ^ (2020)11 Supreme Court Cases 343 11 “24. Having arrived at the above conclusion the quantum of sentence requires consideration. The High Court has awarded life imprisonment to the appellant on being convicted under Section 304-B iPC. The minimum sentence provided is seven years, but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Infact, this Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana [(1994) 6 SCC 727] has held that while imposing the sentence, awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life under Section 304-BIPC should be in rare cases and not in every case. Though the mitigating factor noticed in the said case lA'as different, in the instant case keeping in view the age of the appellant and also the contribution that would be required by her to the family, while husband is also aged and further taking into consideration all other circumstances, the sentence as awarded by the High court to the appellant herein is liable to be modified. ” 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also stated that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has not assigned any reasons for awarding maximum sentence. i I 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the dictum cited supra, the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 304-B IPC is required to be interfered with the below modification. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part by confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge. However, the sentence imposed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge under Section 304-B IPC is reduced to ‘Seven years’ from 12 Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ to meet the ends of justice. The other convictions sentences remain unaltered. The substantive sentences imposed under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act four counts shall run concurrently. It is needless to state that the period , already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Since the appellant was already released on bail, pursuant to the order of this Court in I.A.No.1 of’2023 dated 02.05.2023, he is hereby directed to surrender before the concerned Court to serve the remaining sentence, if any, failing which, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure the presence of appellant by issuing Non-bailable warrant and to commit him to prison for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment. and on As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. SDI- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR f/^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, (with records If any) 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palasa, Srikakulam District, (with records if any) 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District. * 5. Saina Venkat Rao @ Venugopalarao, S/o. Adivayya, Aged 32 Caste by Palli, Meelagramapadu (V), H/o. Sainipeta, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. One CC to SRI. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (To Dispatch the Lower Court Records). 9. Two C.D Copies. years. ssl TAC ' ■ V . HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 378 OF 2018 anoh^ I 15 SEP 2025 I ^ Current Section CRIMINAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART.