IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018

Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018

Between:

Malkari Radha Bai and another

...APPELLANT(s)

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public

Prosecutor

...RESPONDENT(s)

Crl.A.No.2600 of 2018

Between:

Malakari Kiran Kumar ...APPELLANT

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public

Prosecutor

...RESPONDENT(s)

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 05.01.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to

see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No

_________________________

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

__________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Page 2 of 17

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018

% 05.01.2026

Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018

Between:

Malkari Radha Bai and

another

...APPELLANT(s)

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public

Prosecutor

...RESPONDENT(s)

Crl.A.No.2600 of 2018

Between:

Malakari Kiran Kumar ...APPELLANT

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public

Prosecutor

...RESPONDENT(s)

! Counsel for Appellants : Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy

in both the appeals

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana

in both the appeals Additional Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note :

? Cases referred :

1) (2005) 2 SCC 388

2) (2004) 13 SCC 300

3) (2003) 8 SCC 80

4) 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614

5) 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)

This Court delivered the following:

Page 3 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH

PRESENT

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

And

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti)

Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions

Case, i.e., S.C.No.218 of 2017, on the file of the Court of VI Additional

Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, at Gooty, they are heard together and

disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Accused Nos.2 & 3 in the above Sessions Case filed Criminal

Appeal No.2301 of 2018 and accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal

No.2600 of 2018. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge under the following charges:

The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC.

The last charge was under Section 304-B r/w 34 IPC or 302 IPC.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this common judgment

are referred to as they were arrayed in S.C.No.218 of 2017.

4. Substance of the charge is that A-1 being husband, A-2 and A-3

being in-laws of M.Lakshmi Rajyam @ Rajya Lakshmi (hereinafter

referred to as deceased), subjected her to cruelty for want of additional

Page 4 of 17

dowry; that the deceased died on 04.03.2016 at about 7.00 p.m. by

falling under a train, within 7 years of marriage; the accused subjected

the deceased to cruelty soon before her death and thus, committed

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 or 302 IPC.

5. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

convicted accused No.1 under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced him

to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

further convicted accused No.1 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and

sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and also to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one

month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted accused

Nos.2 and 3 under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them

to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven years. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge also convicted accused Nos.2 and 3 under

Section 498-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment

for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in

default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the

substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants field a memo vide USR

No.141377/2025 stating that appellant No.2/accused No.3 in

Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018 died pending the appeal. In view of the said fact,

Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018, by order dated 18.12.2025, was dismissed as

abated insofar as appellant No.2/accused No.3 is concerned. Both the

Page 5 of 17

appeals are taken up for hearing insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are

concerned.

7. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence, briefly, is

as follows:

(i) P.W.3 is the father, P.W.4 is the brother, and P.W.10 is the

paternal uncle of the deceased, respectively. A-1 is the husband, A-2 and

A-3 are in-law of the deceased respectively. The marriage between the

deceased and A-1 was solemnised about 6 years prior to the date of

incident. At the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 150

grams of gold and other household articles towards dowry. One month

after the marriage, all the accused started harassing the deceased to

bring gold ornaments and Pattu clothes towards ‘Vadibiyyam’ every year

from her parents. The accused also harassed the deceased, as she

failed to conceive children. P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital in

Hyderabad, where fertility tests were conducted, and no defect was

found with the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 10 went to the house of accused

and gave Rs.50,000/- to A-1 and chastised them to lead happy marital

life with the deceased. However, there was no change in the attitude of

A-1 to A-3. P.W.3 performed the marriage of his 2

nd

daughter. Thereafter,

the accused harassed the deceased to get cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, the

difference in dowry amount which was given to the younger sister of the

deceased during her wedding.

Page 6 of 17

(ii) On 04.03.2016 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased committed

suicide by falling on the railway track at Platform No.5 in Guntakal

Railway Station and the same was informed to P.W.3 by a known person

at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.3 tried to contact A1 to A3; however, they did not

respond. He, along with others, reached the scene of the offence and

thereafter gave a report to the railway police.

(iii) P.W.2, Chief Health Inspector, at about 7 to 7-30 P.M., found a

dead body of a female (head separated from body) near Swamy Hotel,

Platform No.5 and informed P.W.1, the station manager who, inturn,

reported to P.W.12.

(iv) P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P1 intimation, registered a case in Crime

No.25 of 2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P12 is the F.I.R. He rushed

to the spot and found a female dead body lying on the railway track. He

secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who identified the dead body as

that of the deceased. He posted a guard at the scene of offence.

Thereafter, on 05.03.2016, P.W.3 gave a written report to P.W.12. Based

on the said report, Ex.P2, P.W.12 altered the section of law from Section

174 Cr.P.C. to Section 304-B r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P13 is the FIR alteration

memo. He issued express FIR to all the concerned. He gave a requisition

to the Executive Magistrate, Guntakal (Ex.P14), to conduct inquest over

the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8, the Tahsildar, Guntakal

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The inquest

report is marked as Ex.P8. At the inquest, P.W.12 examined P.W.3 and

Page 7 of 17

others and recorded their statements. Later, the dead body was sent to

Government Hospital for autopsy.

(v) P.W.9 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Guntakal,

conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the cause of

death was due to head injury causing brain haemorrhage, which led to

cardiac and respiratory arrest. Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate. After

receipt of the FSL report, he issued Ex.P10 final opinion.

(vi) P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police, received CD file along with

endorsement of Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police

Officer (SDPO), Guntakal, through a Memo C.No.4544/C1/2016. He

registered the case in Crime No.45 of 2016 under Section 304-B r/w 34

IPC and submitted copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P11 is the

printed FIR. Later, he handed over C.D. to P.W.13, S.D.P.O, Guntakal.

(vii) P.W.13 took up further investigation and proceeded to the

scene of offence. He verified the rough sketch-Ex.P15, prepared by

P.W.12. He secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, examined them and

recorded their statements. He went to Swamy Tea Stall, near the scene

of offence and tried to secure eye witnesses. However, none were

available. Later, he visited the house of the accused and found it locked.

On 20.04.2016, he recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 4, 10 and others. He

also secured the presence of P.Ws.5, 6 and 7, examined them and

recorded their statements. He examined the house of the deceased and

prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P16. On 04.05.2016, P.W.13 arrested

Page 8 of 17

accused Nos.1 and 3 at the SDPO office, Guntakal, and they were sent

for judicial remand. He also collected M.Os.1 to 5 and submitted the

same along with form No.66, to JFCM. He also forwarded the case

property to the Court and, after receipt of RFSL report, Ex.P17, he filed

the charge sheet.

8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13,

marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5.

9. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

regarding incriminating material appearing against them, they pleaded

not guilty.

10. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

11. Heard Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants

and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the respondent-State.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants/accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged

harassment of the deceased ‘soon before’ the death. P.Ws.3, 4 and 10

are interested witnesses, and hence their evidence regarding payment of

dowry or demand for additional dowry needs to be considered carefully

Page 9 of 17

and cautiously. Thus, would pray to set aside the conviction and

sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

supported the judgment of the trial court and would contend that the

death of the deceased occurred within seven years of the marriage.

Hence, the presumption under Section 304-B would apply to the facts of

the case. He would also contend that the learned Additional Sessions

Judge considered all the aspects and convicted the appellants. He thus

prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.

14. We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the

material available on record.

15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants

for the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. Section 304-B

I.P.C. and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act were inserted into

the respective statutes by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 43 of

1986 (for short ‘the Act’).

16. Section 304-B IPC deals with dowry death, reads as follows:

“304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused

by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of her 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 for, or in

connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called

‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have

caused her death. (emphasis is added)

Page 10 of 17

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, ‘dowry’ shall

have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but

which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by

any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal

circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown

that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in

connection with, any demand for dowry.

17. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act reads thus:

“113-B. 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.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, ‘dowry death’ shall

have the same meaning as in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860.”

18. Thus, Section 304-B I.P.C. would apply where the death of a

woman occurs under unnatural circumstances, within seven years of her

marriage, and it is shown that ‘soon before her death’, she was subjected

to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection

with any demand for dowry. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act provides

a presumption of dowry death when it is shown that a woman was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in

Page 11 of 17

connection with the demand for dowry, ‘soon before her death’. Such

presumption shall be drawn on the proof. The Court shall consider

whether the accused had committed the dowry death of a woman (when

the accused is tried for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.), the

woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his

relatives, and such cruelty or harassment was for any demand for dowry,

soon before her death.

19. The prosecution must rule out the possibility of a natural or

accidental death to bring it within the purview of ‘death occurring

otherwise in normal circumstances. The prosecution must show that,

soon before the death, there was cruelty or harassment, and in such

circumstances, only the presumption under Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act operates.

20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar

1

,

considered an identical issue in an appeal filed by the accused against

the conviction and sentence recorded for the offence under Section 304-

B I.P.C. and held as under at para 11:

“11. … “Soon before” is a relative term and it would depend

upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can

be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the

occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and

that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of

an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression “soon before her

1

(2005) 2 SCC 388

Page 12 of 17

death” used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B

of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No

definite period has been indicated and the expression “soon before”

is not defined. A reference to the expression “soon before” used in

Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays

down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession

of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the

goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his

possession. The determination of the period which can come within

the term “soon before” is left to be determined by the courts,

depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice,

however, to indicate that the expression “soon before” would

normally imply that the interval should not be much between the

cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There

must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effects of

cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the

alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale

enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it

would be of no consequence.”

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teg Bahadur

and Others

2

, while considering 304-B I.P.C. vis-à-vis the burden of the

prosecution to prove the offence, observed as under at para 15:

“15. In brief, for proving the offence under Section 304-B of the

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following things:

(a) The death of the married woman was within seven

years of the marriage.

(b) A little prior to death, her husband or relative, on the

point of demand of dowry subjected her to cruelty or

harassed her.”

2

(2004) 13 SCC 300

Page 13 of 17

22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hira lal v. State (Govt. of NCT),

Delhi

3

, held as under at para No.9:

Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression “soon before”

would normally imply that the interval should not be much between

the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question.

There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the

effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If

the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale

enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman

concerned, it would be of no consequence.

23. In the case at hand, according to the prosecution, the marriage

between the deceased and accused No.1 was solemnised six years prior

to the incident. The prosecution, to prove the demand for additional dowry

and harassment, examined P.Ws. 3, 4, and 10, the father, brother, and

paternal uncle of the deceased, respectively. In their chief examination,

they deposed about the presentation of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- and gold

ornaments at the time of marriage. The couple, according to the

prosecution, lived together till the date of death.

24. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Court is concerned with

the quality and not with the quantity of evidence for proving a fact. The

Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations in its celebrated

judgment in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras

4

:

“11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule

of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the

quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

3

(2003) 8 SCC 80

4

1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614

Page 14 of 17

Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified

into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty

in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may

acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above

reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or

subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no

difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of

cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for

corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or

circumstantial.”

25. In the case at hand, though P.Ws.3, 4 and 10, in their evidence,

spoke about the alleged harassment made by accused Nos.1 to 3, the

evidence falls within the third category of the above test. The evidence

does not inspire confidence in the Court since the evidence is far from

reality and naturality. Had the accused really harassed as spoken by

P.Ws 3, 4 and 10, for a period of nearly five years, P.W.1 would have

reported the same or pressed for elderly mediation. P.W.3, father of the

deceased, specifically stated in his cross-examination that no panchayat

was held before the elders regarding harassment caused by accused

Nos.1 to 3 towards their daughter.

26. The other allegation of P.W.3 is regarding the payment of the

additional amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1. He had not furnished

Page 15 of 17

the date, or at least the month or year. Likewise, the evidence of P.Ws.3,

4 and 10 is silent regarding the solemnization of the marriage of the

second daughter of P.W.3 and the demand of Rs.2,00,000/- made by

accused Nos 1 to 3 on the deceased.

27. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt by connecting them to the offence. In the case at hand,

in Ex.P1, report, P.W.3 stated about the marriage and presentation of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with other articles, at the time of marriage. The report

further discloses the alleged medical tests conducted on the deceased

regarding fertility. However, nothing was mentioned about the payment of

Rs.50,000/- and the demand for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus,

P.W.3 and other material witnesses improved the version during the

evidence. Of course, Ex.P1, report cannot be treated as an

encyclopedia. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, non-

mentioning of the alleged payment, demand of additional dowry and the

harassment made by accused Nos.1 to 3 on the deceased, the

prosecution failed to connect the accused to the crime.

28. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.12, S.I. of Police, Guntakal

R.P.S., the scene of offence is situated in the middle of the platform,

where several passengers will be present, and Guntakal railway station is

a big junction, where trains move round the clock with the public.

29. Given the above discussion, the prosecution failed to connect the

appellants to the crime and prove their guilt regarding the cruelty and

Page 16 of 17

harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, soon before the

death of the deceased. Hence, convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the

offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C., based on the improved

version of P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 is wholly unsustainable. Therefore, we are

inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.218 of 2017 against accused Nos.1

and 2 under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.

30. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.2301 and 2600 of 2018 are

hereby allowed by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded

against accused Nos.1 and 2, by the learned VI Additional Sessions

Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, in S.C.No.218 of 2017 dated 01.08.2018, for

the offences under 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. Accordingly they are acquitted

of the said charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to them.

As accused Nos.1 and 2 were already enlarged on bail by orders dated

28.03.2024 and 21.08.2018 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.2600 of

2018 and I.A.No.1 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018 respectively, they are

directed to appear before the concerned for completing the legal

formalities in terms of the order rendered by the combined High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.

5

.

31. The Crl.Appeal No.2301 of 2018, was dismissed as abated insofar

as appellant No.2/accused No.3 is concerned, by order dated

18.12.2025 in Memo Crl.A. USR No.141377/2025.

5

2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)

Page 17 of 17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

________________________

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

________________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date : 05.01.2026

IKN