Page 1

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 OF 2009

Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder Rao …Appellant

Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court  

of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2005 dated 5th  

June 2007.  By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed  

the judgment dated 8th February 2005 in Sessions Case No.23  

of 2004 on the file of the V-Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track  

Court) at Nizamabad.  

2. The sole appellant herein alongwith his parents was tried  

for the offences under section 304B and 498A IPC. Apart from  

1

Page 2

that  the  appellant  herein  was  tried  for  an  offence  under  

section 302 IPC simplicitor while all  the three persons were  

charged and tried for the offence under section 302 read with  

section  109  IPC.   While  the  sole  appellant  herein  was  

convicted for the offence under section 302 as well as section  

498A IPC, the trial court did not record any finding against the  

appellant herein insofar as the charge under section 304B IPC  

is concerned.  The other two accused were acquitted of all the  

charges.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant  

carried the matter in appeal to the High Court unsuccessfully.  

Hence the present appeal.  

4. The wife of the appellant by name Jyotsna died on 21st  

May 2003.  The deceased Jyotsna and the appellant married  

sometime in 1998, therefore, the death of Jyotsna took place  

within  seven  years  from  the  date  of  marriage.   The  

prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence.  The  

prosecution relied on five circumstances to establish the guilt  

of the appellant herein, they are — (i) the deceased and the  

appellant were wife and husband; (ii) they were living in the  

2

Page 3

same house; (iii) the deceased was harassed by the appellant  

for additional dowry; (iv) according to the medical evidence  

though the body was allegedly found hanging it was infact a  

case of strangulation; and lastly an extra-judicial  confession  

was made by A-1 before PW9.

5. To  establish  the  above  circumstances  the  prosecution  

examined as many as 16 witnesses.  PW1, PW2 and PW4 are  

the parents and brother of the deceased respectively.  PW5  

and PW6 are neighbours and PW7 is a resident of the locality  

who according to the prosecution saw the dead body hanging  

by a lungi to the roof.  PW14 is the doctor who conducted post  

mortem examination on the dead body on 22.5.2003.   PW15  

is the Sub-Inspector of Police/Station House Officer attached to  

the V-Town Police Station, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh, who  

initially  registered  a  crime  under  section  304B  IPC  on  the  

report (Ex.P1) made by PW1.  PWs1, 2 and 4 were examined to  

prove the factum of harassment for dowry by the appellant  

herein.  PW3 is the husband of the sister of the deceased who  

was  also  examined  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  

harassment for dowry.  Their evidence remains unimpeached  

3

Page 4

and both the courts below believed their version insofar as the  

appellant is concerned.

6. PW7 is a resident of the locality where the appellant and  

the deceased lived.  According to the prosecution, he went to  

the appellant’s house at 8.30 a.m. on the fateful day in order  

to collect some amount due from A-1.  There he found the  

deceased hanging by a lungi to the roof on the first floor of the  

building.  With the hope of saving the life, PW7 disentangled  

the dead body and laid it on the floor only to find that the lady  

was  already  dead.   Thereafter,  he  alongwith  the  help  of  

another person Bhumaiah (who is not examined) shifted the  

dead body to the ground floor of the building.

7. According to the evidence of PW1, some unknown person  

had informed by telephone on the fateful day in the morning  

hours that the deceased was ill.  Thereafter, PW1 passed on  

the information to PW4, who was residing in the same town  

(Nizamabad) as the appellant and the deceased, and asked  

him to ascertain the state of affairs.  Thereafter, PW1 along  

with other members of the family rushed to Nizamabad only to  

find the dead body of his daughter.

4

Page 5

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there  

is no iota of evidence to establish that the appellant caused  

the death of Jyotsna.  He submitted that even if the offence  

under section 498A is proved in the absence of any clinching  

evidence  that  the  appellant  caused the  death  of  Jyotsna  it  

would  not  be  safe  to  convict  the  appellant  for  the  offence  

under section 302 IPC as the requirement of criminal law is  

that  the  prosecution  must  establish  the  guilt  of  accused  

beyond all reasonable doubt and in a case of circumstantial  

evidence the chain of circumstances is so complete that they  

collectively  point  only  to  the  guilt  of  the  accused  without  

leaving  any  scope  for  doubt.    The  learned  counsel  made  

elaborate  submissions  impeaching  the  credibility  of  the  

evidence of PW14 the doctor who conducted the post mortem  

examination.  PW14 opined that the cause of death is “shock  

due to asphyxia on account of strangulation”.  The learned  

counsel relied upon various passages from Modi’s Textbook of  

Medical Jurisprudence in a bid to establish that having regard  

to  the  nature  of  the  external  injuries  on  the  body  of  the  

deceased, the death of Jyotsna is a result of hanging but not  

5

Page 6

strangulation thereby creating doubt about the credibility of  

the prosecution case.

9. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  State  

argued  that  the  concurrent  finding  of  fact  resulting  in  the  

conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC may not be  

interfered with in the absence of any illegality in the judgment  

under appeal.

10. We  must  at  the  outset  state  that  one  of  the  five  

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the  

guilt of the appellant i.e. the alleged extra-judicial confession  

made by the appellant before PW9 is disbelieved by the High  

Court.  Therefore, only four circumstances remain, they are: (i)  

the appellant and the deceased were husband and wife; and  

(ii) they were living in the same house.  These facts are not  

even disputed by the appellant.  The third circumstance relied  

upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was harassed by  

the appellant for additional dowry.  The said circumstance is  

abundantly established by the evidence of PW1 to PW4.   

6

Page 7

The  fourth  circumstance  that  the  death  of  Jyotsna  in  the  

opinion1 of the doctor was caused by strangulation (we do not  

propose to examine the correctness of the opinion)  even if  

believed need not, in our opinion, lead to the conclusion that it  

is only the accused who must be held responsible for such  

strangulation.   The  building  in  which  the  accused  and  the  

deceased were living consists of four portions where others  

were also living.   

Even if we give the benefit of the above mentioned doubt to  

the appellant, the appellant cannot escape his liability for a  

charge under section 304B IPC which creates a legal fiction.  

All the ingredients of section 304B are satisfied in the instant  

case, that the death of Jyotsna occurred within seven years of  

her marriage the death occurred otherwise than under normal  

circumstances and that Jyotsna was subjected to harassment  

which amounted to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A  

IPC of which charge the appellant is also found guilty by both  

the courts below.

1 We notice from the evidence of doctor that he is of the opinion that asphyxia   can  occur  either  because  of  strangulation  or  hanging.  Only  by  a  very  close  scrutiny of the symptoms the exact cause of asphyxia can be identified.

7

Page 8

11. In the light  of the abovementioned circumstances,  the  

appellant in our opinion must be found guilty for an offence  

under section 304B IPC.  He was infact charged at trial for the  

said offence though both the courts below failed to record any  

finding in this regard.  The offence under section 304B IPC is  

punishable with the sentence for a term which may not be less  

than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for  

life.  We, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant for an  

offence under  section  302  IPC  to  an  offence under  section  

304B  IPC  and  reduce  the  sentence  to  the  period  already  

undergone (we are informed that the appellant is in jail  for  

almost  a  decade).   He  may  be  released  forthwith  if  not  

required in any other  case.  The judgment under appeal  is  

modified accordingly.

..………………………………….J.                                                     (RANJANA PRAKASH  

DESAI)

...………………………………….J.                                       (J. CHELAMESWAR )

New Delhi; January 06, 2014.

8