Holding

The appellant is convicted of dowry death under IPC s.304B and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, not life imprisonment under IPC s.302.

Summary

The appellant Vanga Sriniwas was accused of killing his wife by strangulation and hanging her body, allegedly to conceal a dowry‑related dispute. The trial court acquitted him, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court convicted him of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined extensive circumstantial evidence, including village witnesses, panchayat testimony, and a post‑mortem report indicating throttling as the cause of death. The investigating agency had altered the charge from s.302 to IPC s.304B (dowry death) and s.201, a change the High Court failed to consider. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established the offence of dowry death under s.304B, not murder, and modified the conviction and sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder under IPC s.302
Whether the conviction under IPC s.302 is appropriate given the charge was altered to IPC s.304B and s.201
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be modified to the minimum term prescribed under IPC s.304B

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 304B

Subjects

dowry deathIPC 304BIPC 302murderconviction modificationcircumstantial evidencepost-mortemlife imprisonmentseven years imprisonment

Judgment

A VANGA SRINIWAS ~-
v.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2007

B (CJ(. THAKKERANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860-ss. 3048 and 20l~Strangulation of wife by J..,

husband-Alteration of charges from s. 302 toss. 3048 and 201-Acquittal
by trial court-High Court convicting accused under s. 302 and imposing
c life imprisonment-Held: Not justified-Evidence ofpanchas, medical evidence
and the fact that accused was alone in the company of deceased, it is clear
that deceased died due to strangulation-Based on materials collected with
regard to dowry demand, suspicion, harassment and torture by accused and
medical evidence as to the cause of death, investigating agency altered the
D offence from s. 302 to 3048 and 201-High Court did not take note of the
same-In view of altered charges, accused convicted under s. 3048 and
sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution case, appellant murdered his wife-VV by
strangulation and hanged the dead body to the ceiling fan with the intention
E to screen the offence. One year prior to the incident appellant was married to
VV. Parents of the deceased-PW-I and PW-2 stated that the accused tortured
and harassed the deceased for dowry. The residents of the village also deposed
that appellant and VV used to quarrel regarding dowry. Father of the deceased-
PW I lodged FIR Investigation was carried out Doctor conducted post-mortem
and opined that he could not decide preliminarily that death was suicidal or
F .l
'
homicidal. Charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, investigating agency based on
the materials with regard to demand of dowry, suspicion, harassment and
torture by the accused and the medical evidence as to the cause of death altered
the charges from section 302 to section 304B and section 201. Sessions Judge
relying on the finding of the doctor and that the prosecution failed to establish
G its case, acquitted the appellant-accused for the offence under sections 302,
201 or 3048 IPC. High Court finding that the prosecution has established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the accused for
offence under section 302 and imposed life imprisonment. Hence the present ,.l.
..
appeal

H 1028
VANGA SRINIWAS v. PUB. PROSE. HIGH COURT OF A.P. 1029

·>- During pendency of appeal, appellant filed application for permission to A
file additional documents-Annexure Al-copy of alteration of section of law
from s. 302 to s. 304B and s. 201 IPC filed by the Police Inspector before
trial court and Annexure Al-copy of charge sheet filed by Sub Divisional Police
Officer.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court B

HELD: 1. The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court is
modified and the appellant/accused is convicted under section 304 B IPC and
a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is imposed to meet the ends
of justice. (Para 16) (1037-F, G]
c
2.1. The statement of prosecution witnesses 3, 4 and 6 cannot be lightly
ignored when admittedly all of them are residents of the same village
particularly residing in and around the house of accused. Though no specific
reference was made to dowry demand in the complaint, if the entire evidence
of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 coupled with other circumstances is considered the D
accused harassed the deceased and threatened her on many occasions for not
fulfilling his demand of dowry. No doubt, he not only threatened her but also
1
doubted her fidelity and was not able to bear with her when she interacted
with others. It is not in dispute that at the time of occurrence, the deceased
and the accused alone were inside the house. If it is a mere case of suicide,
E
on seeing the same he could have raised an alarm or even prevented her,
instead he ran away from the scene ofoccurrence. (Para 11) (1034-D, E, Fl

2.2. Both PWs 8 and 9-attestors of inquest report expressed that the
deceased had not committed suicide but she was throttled and was hanged to
the fan. They also observed that the feet of the dead body was touching the cot F
beneath and the saree noose was loose. It is also seen that during the inquest,
the panchas also opined that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of the
deceased and he used to beat her. PW 11 - Mandal Revenue Officer deposed
that the inquest was held in his presence and found marks around the neck
and ear. [Para 12) [1034-G, H; 1035-A, BJ
G
2.3. Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased in
his preliminary report has not offered his opinion as to the cause of death but
in the final opinion, he has specifically stated that the cause of death is
1 "Asphysixi due to throttling". The analysis of post-mortem report coupled ·
with the evidence of doctor clearly showed presence of nail marks, contusion H
over the neck, ligature marks around the neck, fracture of hyoid bone corn
- .-<:
\

1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A and and fracture of9 ribs right and left sides. Though there was a suspicion
that the deceased might have been poisoned on account of the presence of some
powder in the glass and a tablet that were present at the scene of occurrence,
in view of FSL report, there is no proof to the effect that the death was due to
poison. [Para 13] (1036-B, C, DJ

B 2.4. On consideration of all material circumstances, particularly the
undisputed fact that at or about the time of deceased's death, no third person
except the ac~used and the deceased, were present in the house;· evidence of
panchas-PWs 8 and 9, PW 11-Revenue Officer, coupled with the medical
evidence as well as final report, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that
C within all human probability, it was the accused and none else, who had
murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death.
(Paras 12, 13 and 14) (1036-D, E)
2.5. The prosecution rightly pointed out that, it was nGt the case of the
accused that any other person was residing with them in the same house
particularly on the fateful day. Further, there was no explanation from the
accused as to when he left the house and came to kitow about the hanging of
the dead body and it would be right in arriving at a conclusion that he alone
was responsible for the commission of the offence. As observed by High Court,
the trial Court acquitted the accused only on the simple ground that the
E docto~, who conducted post-mortem examination, did not offer cause of death
in his preliminary report, forgetting that in the final report particularly after
receipt of FSL report, the very same doctor has opined that the death was due-
to "Asphysixi due to throttling". In the light of the materials available, the
conclusion of the trial Judge cannot be accepted and the High Court taking
into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the entire materials
F was right in accepting the case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty.
j
(Para 14) [1036-F, G; 1037-A, BJ

2.6. Additional documents-Annexures Al and A2 clearly show that based
on the materials collected the investigating agency altered the offence from
G Sections 302 IPC to 304B and 201 IPC. The altered charge has not been taken
note of by the High Court while arriving at a conclusion against the accused.
In view of the relevant materials with regard to demand of dowry, suspicion,
harassment and torture by the accused and'the medical evidence as to the
cause of death and in the light of the altered charge memo as one of Section
l,
304B instead of 302 IPC, it is but proper to convict the accused only under
H Section 304B IPC and not under Section 302 IPC as ordered by the High
Court. [Para 15) (1037-C, D, E)
VANGA SRINIWAS v. PUB. PROSE. HIGH COURT OF A.P. [SATHASIVAM, 1.Jl 031

·> CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 243 of A
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2006 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. Appeal No. 2339 of 2004.

I. Venkatnarayana, T.N. Rao, Manjeet Kirpal and Paramjeet Singh for the B
Appellant.

Debojit Borkakati and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
P. SATHASIV AM, J. l. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2339 of2004 dated 11.10.2006
reversing the order of the acquittal passed by the II Addi. District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad in Sessions Case No.314of1998 convicting
D
and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

r 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:-

The appellant herein was the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 314 of
1998 on the file of II Addi. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. On E
24.0 l.1997, at about l l.00 a.m., the accused caused the death of his wife -
Vanga Vimala by throttling her neck and in order to screen the said offence,
hanged her dead body to the ceiling fan. The further charge was that the
accused was harassing the deceased for dowry. The father of the deceased
was examined as PW 1 and PW 2 is wife of PW 1. The deceased was given
in marriage to the accused one year prior to the date of incident. The accused F
i
and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Gajulapet village. PWs 3 to
6 who are all residents of the same village deposed about the quarrel between
the deceased and the accused regarding dowry and other matters. The offence
took place on 24.0l.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. After coming to know the
incident, PW l rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased G
- her daughter hanging to the ceiling fan with a new saree. He made a
complaint to the police (Ex. P-1) based on which a crime was registered. Based
on the complaint of PW I, the police took up investigation, noted the scene
~ of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the
dead body for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses and recorded
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A their statements. The accused was arrested on 03.02.1997 and after receipt of
the final opinion from the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination
and after completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined
as many as PWs I to 14 and marked Ex. Pl to Pl4. No oral or documentary
B evidence was adduced on the defence side. The learned Sessions Judge, by
judgment dated 25.04.2003 after finding that the doctor who conducted post-
mortem cannot decide preliminarily that the death was suicidal or homicidal
and the prosecution failed. to establish that the accused himself is connected
with the death of the deceased, acquitted the accused under Section 235(1)
C Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 302, 201 or 304B IPC.

4. Questioning the correctness of the acquittal of the trial Court, the
State through its Public Prosecutor filed Criminal Appeal No. 2339 of 2004
before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Division Bench, by the impugned
order dated 11.10.2006, after accepting the case of the prosecution and
D considering the entire circumstances and finding that the__prosecution has
established the guilt for offence under Section 302 beyond reasonable doubt
sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine
of Rs. l ,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. Challenging
the said order of the Division Bench, the accused has preferred the present
E appeal before this Court.

5. We heard Mr. I. Venkatnarayana, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Debojit Borkakati, learned counsel f<?r the respondent.

6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the
F prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
the High Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

7. Before analyzing the case of the prosecution, it is relevant to mention
G that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant/accused filed I.A. No.
8289 of 2007 praying for permission to file additional documents, namely,
Annexure-A I copy of alteration of Section of law filed by the Inspector of
Police before the trial Court on 25.01.1997 and Annexure-A2 copy of the
charge sheet filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad.

H 8. It is seen from the documents - Annexures A I and A2, the investigating
)- -

VANGASRINIWASv.PUB.PROSE.HIGHCOURTOFA.P.[SATHASIVAM,J.)1033

agency, based on the materials, arrived at a conclusion that the accused A
Vanga Sriniwas suspected the character of the deceased and also tortured her
for dowry and when she failed to get the same, the accused murdered her by
strangulation and hanged the dead body to the ceiling fan with an intention
to screen the offence and, therefore, the offence under Section 3048 and
Section 201 IPC has been established against the accused. In view of the B
above facts and circumstances, the Section of law has been altered from 302
IPC to 304B and 201 IPC.

9. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has not examined eye-witness
to the occurrence. In other words, there is no direct witness who, in fact, saw
the alleged offence. The prosecution case rests mainly on the circumstantial C
evidence and let us consider whether the prosecution placed acceptable
materials to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused. It is pertinent
to mention that even after the alteration of charge, both the trial Court as well
as the High Court proceeded with a case as if the charge relates to Section
302 IPC. As said earlier, the trial Judge mainly based on the post-mortem D
report of the doctor acquitted the accused whereas the High Court accepted
the case of prosecution in toto and found guilty accused under Section 302
IPC and imposed life imprisonment. With this background, let us analyze the
case of the prosecution and the defence of the accused.

10. The appellant/accused after marriage with the deceased Vanga Vimala E
were staying in rented accommodation in H.No.9-8-734 in Gajulapet. The
deceased used to attend the household work of other houses. PW l, who is
the father of the deceased, in his evidence deposed that after marriage the
accused now and then bring his daughter to his home. The accused was not
bearing his wife going to market and often questioned her while she was
speaking with others. He used to beat her by locking the house. He was F
demanding dowry and her daughter used to tell all these whenever the
accused brought her to his home. He was harassing her for money and once
gave- her poison by mixing it into water, made her to drink and when she
refused; he pressed her throat and made her to consume it. At the time of
the incident, PW I was at factory and on receipt of information, he went to G
the house of the accused and found her daughter hanging to a fan with a
new saree. It was he who made a complaint to the police. The complaint is
Ex. P-1. PW 2 - wife of PW I and mother of the deceased also reiterated the
same.

11. Mr. I. Venkatnarayana, learned senior counsel, by drawing our H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A attention to Ex. P-1 (complaint to the police), submitted that in the absence
of any reference to dowry demand/harassment, the statement of PW 1 as well
as PW 2 b~fore the Court regarding demand of dowry by the accused is an
afterthought and hence ~e same was rightly not accepted by the learned trial
Judge and the High Court committed an error in convicting the accused. It
B is true that though there is no reference in the complaint about the dowry
demand, however, PWs I & 2 who are none else than the parents of the
deceased, in their evidence stated about torture and dowry harassment by the
accused. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of other witnesses,
namely, PWs 3, 4 and 6. PW 3 is a resident of Boigally, which is nearby to
the vegetable market, Gajulapet. According to her, on the date of.incident,
C while she was going to the market she saw the accused and his wife quarrelling
with regard to dowry amount. She also heard the quarrels between the aecused
and his wife and asserted that Vimala died for not bringing dowry. PW 4,
resident of Gajulapet, also reiterated and asserted that there were quarrels
between the accused and his wife over demand for dowry. Though PW 5,
.D another resident of the same village turned hostile, PW 6, who is also a
resident of Gajulapet, deposed before the Court that he observed on many
occasi0ns the accused and his wife quarelling and the accused demanding
her to bring more dowry. The statement of these witnesses i.e. PWs 3, 4 and
6 cannot be lightly ignored when admittedly all of them are residents of the
E same village particularly residing in and around the house of the accused. As
said earlier, though no specific reference was made to dowry demand in the
complaint, if we consider the entire evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 coupled
with othP-r circumstances, we are of the view that the accused harassed the
deceased and threatened her on many occasions for not fulfilling his demand
of dowry. No doubt, he not only threatened her but also doubted her fidelity
F and was not able to bear with her when she interacts with others. It is not
in dispute that at the time of occurrence, the deceased and the accused alone
_l,
were inside the house. If it is a mere case of suicide, as rightly pointed out
by the prosecution, on seeing the same he could have raised an alarm or even
prevented her, instead he ran away from the scene of occurrence.
G 12. It is useful to refer to the evidence of PW 8 and PW 9 who are
attestors of inquest report. PW 8 also a resident of Gajulapet, Nizamabad in
her evidence has stated that she along with PW 9 found Vanga Vimala
hanging to the ceiling fan and it appeared the neck of the deceased Vimala
was tied with a saree. Both PWs 8 and 9 expressed that the deceased had
H not committed suicide but she was throttled and was hanged to the fan. They J.
VANGASRINIWASv.PUB.PROSE.HIGHCOURTOFA.P.[SATHASIVAM,J.]1035

also observed that the feet of the dead body was touching the cot beneath A
> and the saree noose is loose. The above statement of PW 8 and PW 9 is
available in Ex. P-8 which is inquest panchnama. It is also seen that during
the inquest, the above said panchas also opined that the accused used to
suspect the fidelity of the deceased and he used to beat her. PW 11 - Mandal
Revenue Officer deposed that the inquest was held in his presence and found B
marks around the neck and ear. In view of the fact that the accused alone was
in the company of the deceased, the evidence of PWs 8, 9 and 11 strengthen
the case of prosecution that the deceased died due to strangulation.
-'· 13. Now let us consider the medical evidence. Dr. R. Balaiah, who
conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased, was examined as PW C
10. According to him, on 25.01.1997, he received a requisition from MPO,
Nizamabad to conduct autopsy on the body ofVimala. He and Dr. Rama Devi
conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:

"I. Abrasions numbering four in the shape of nail markings vertically
placed on the left side of the neck.
D
2 Contusion measuring 2X 1 inches on the right side of neck
horizontally placed.
3. Ligature mark around the neck with a gap on the left side behind
the ear.

The above injuries are anti-mortem in nature. Injury No. I is caused E
by nails and injury Nos. 2 and 3 with a blunt object.

Internal Injuries:

1. Fracture of hyoid bone right com.
2. Fracture of3,4,5,6,7th ribs on r/s and 4,5,6,7th ribs on the I/s near F
steno castle junction. Lungs were congested, heart congested
and peritoiral cavity contains about 200 cc of clotted blood.
Intestine and omintum stained with blood.

Small intestine contused in different places. Liver, Spleen, Kidney
are congested. Uterus stained with blood. Viscera was sent for chemical G
analysis.

The result of analysis is there was no poisonous substance. The
FBL report is Ex.P-10.

Ex.Pl 1 is preliminary Post-Mortem Examination report issued by H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A myself and Doctor Smt. Ramadevi.
../....
Final opinion as to cause of death is Asphysixi due to throttling.
The final report issued by both ofus is Ex.P-12. The approximate time
of death is 24 - 36 hours prior to PME."

B Though in his preliminary report Ex. P-11, the doctor has not offered his
opinion as to the cause of death but in the final opinion, he has specifically
stated that the cause of death is "Asphysixi due to throttling". The analysis
of post-mortem report coupled with the evidence of doctor clearly show (a)
presence of nail marks (b) contusion over the neck (c) ligature marks around
the neck (d) fracture of hyoid bone com and (e) fracture of. 9 ribs right and
C left sides. Though there was a suspicion that the deceased might have been
poisoned on account of the presence of some powder in the glass and a tablet
that were present at the scene of occurrence, in view of FSL report i.e. Ex.
P-10, there is no proof to the effect that the death was due to poison. On the
other hand, the evidence of panchas PWs 8 and 9 coupled with the medical
D evidence PW l 0 as well as the final report (Ex.P-12) clearly show that the
deceased died on account of strangulation.

14. The scene of observation report (Ex .P-9) prepared by the
investigating officer show that the house of the accused is located in the
middle of other houses. In view of the medical evidence and in conjunction
E with the 0ther circumstances, particularly the undisputed fact that at or about
the time of Vanga Vimala's death, no third person excepting the accused and
the deceased, was present in the house, it will inescapably lead to the
conclusion that within all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and
none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death. We
have already noted that the accused alone was insi"de the house along with
F his wife, namely, the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, it
is not the case of the accused that any other person was residing with them
in the same house P11'1icularly on the fateful day. Further, as rightly pointed
out, there was no explanation from the accused as to when he left the house
and came to know about the hanging of the dead body and it would be right
G in arriving at a conclusion that he alone was responsible for the commission
of the offence. If we consider all the above mentioned material circumstances
coupled with the medical evidence, it is safe to conclude that the death of
the deceased was on account of strangulation. As rightly pointed out, there
was no possibility of any other person committing the offence and the
accused alone was responsible for the commission of the offence. In such
H circumstances, we agree with the contention of the State counsel that the
VANGA SRINIWAS v. PUB. PROSE. HIGH COURT OF AP. [SATHASIVAM, J.]1037

... prosecution placed sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. As observed by the High Court, the trial Court
A

acquitted the accused only on the simple ground that the doctor, who
conducted post-mortem examination, did not offer cause of death in his
preliminary report, forgetting that in the final report particularly after receipt
of FSL report, the very same doctor has opined that the death was due to
"Asphysixi due to throttling". In the light of the materials available, the B
conclusion of the trial Judge cannot be accepted and the High Court taking
~4.
into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the entire materials
was right in accepting the case of the prosecution and found the accused
guilty.

15. Mr. I.Venkatnarayana, learned senior counsel, submitted that even
c
if this Court accepts the prosecution case in view of alteration of the charge,
namely, from Sections 302 to 3048 and 201 IPC, the conviction and sentence
for an offence under Section 302 IPC by the High Comt cannot be sustained.
In the earlier part of the judgment, we have referred to Annexures AI and A2
which clearly show that based on the materials collected the investigating D
agency altered the offence from Sections 302 IPC to 3048 and 201 IPC. The
,...,
altered charge has not been taken note of by the High Court while arriving
at a conclusion against the accused. In the earlier part of our judgment, we
have referred to the relevant materials with regard to demand of dowry,
suspicion, harassment and torture by the accused and the medical evidence
as to the cause of death. In view of the same and in the light of the altered E
charge memo as one of Section 3048 instead of 302 IPC, it is but proper to
convict the accused only under Section 3048 IPC and not under Section 302
IPC as ordered by the High Court. As per sub-section (2) of Section 3048 !PC,
the minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years and may extend to imprisonment
for life. F
16. Considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on
24.01.1997 and the appellant/accused undergone the agony for more than ten
years, we are of the view that a sentence of seven years would meet the ends
of justice. Accordingly, we modify the conviction and sentence imposed by
the High Court; instead the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304 G
8 IPC and impose a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.

) 17. In the result, the ~ppeal is allowed in part subject to the above
modification.

N.J. Appeal partly allowed. H