• A de facto complaint case was filed based on a complaint against the appellant and his parents for an offence under section 498A, 304B and 302 on 07/12/2011 in the police station of Ranga Reddy District.
• After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant and his parents.
• The case was committed to the sessions court after the metropolitan magistrate had taken cognizance.
• Sessions court held the appellant liable and sentenced his imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 5000 under section 304B and imprisonment for three years and fine of ₹ 3000 under section 498A, while his parents were discharged.
• The appeal was filed before the High Court, but the Court dismissed it.

Submission of the parties

• It was argued by the counsel of the appellant that there is an utter failure on the part of respondents as they are not able to prove offence under section 498A and 304B and the Court has convicted the appellant erroneously.
• He further stated that appellant and deceased married on 13th February 2005 and are blessed with two sons. He also contended that there is no evidence showing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
• He further contended that there is no evidence or statement of independent witness as all three witnesses presented by the defendant are interested in the deceased, so based on the decision of this Court in case of Piara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, that testimony of such a witness is not to be relied upon.
• He contended that sessions court has wrongly convicted and imposed maximum punishment under section 304B. Even the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant outrightly that too even without recording reasons for the same.
• On the other hand, counsel for the defendant stated that the High Court had rejected the appeal application by recording valid reason, and there is no need for interference with it.

If we see the judgment, it is very to the point and concise judgment which talks about the facts, issues, submission and then to the judgment directly. But something is missing in the judgment which is the applicability of the law that how the Court has applied the law to the case. As Court has provided its reason for bail and has suspended sentence based on pending appeal still there is a gap which Court can fill as to how a high court or lower Court can improve their way of passing judgment and perform their duty in the right manner. Overall we can say that judgment has provided the appellant with the relief he demanded and has also given him full opportunity to present himself.

Judgment by: Ashok Bhushan, J., and R. Subhash Reddy, J

Hon'ble Court based on the submissions of both the parties and seeing material on record has allowed the appeal. After noting the fact that the appellant is in jail from 15th December 2016 has ordered his release on bail and has suspended the sentence imposed on him.

Court further stated it does not want to go into merits of the case as such because appeal is pending before High Court, which is to be disposed of in the right manner. The Court also opined that the appellant would not leave the country till disposal of the appeal.