Judgment

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.

(1) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High court of Andhra Pradesh, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 1987 partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the convictions of respondents 2 to 4 (accused 1 to 3 under Section 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code and S. 498-A Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment respectively but retaining the conviction of the respondents 2 to 4 under S. 201 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment as against respondents 2 and 3 (accused 1 and 2 but reducing the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on respondent 4 (A-3 to the period already undergone and in lieu of the unserved portion of the sentence, imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recapitulated for the disposal of this appeal.

(3) BEFORE the trial court, there were four accused namely respondents 2 to 4 and one Mallidi Peda Kapu alias Venkata Reddy (accused 4 who stood convicted under S. 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a Fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months and who is not a respondent in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer respondents 2 to 4 in this judgment as accused 1 to 3 as arrayed before the trial court.

(4) THE second and third accused are the father and mother of the first accused. The first accused married the deceased, Vijaya, daughter of Public Witness 8 (the appellant herein) on 10/05/1979 at Tirumala hills. Public Witness 9 is the brother of the deceased. All the accused are residents of Komaripalem. The appellant is the resident.of Rayavaram. At the time of the marriage, the appellant gave sufficient Cash and gold to the deceased. As the deceased was aged about 12 years at the time of her marriage she stayed with her parents till she attained her puberty and thereafter was sent to her marital home. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased used to complain to her father that her husband and in-laws were pressing hard to get some landed property towards her dowry. When the appellant made enquiries about her daughterS complaints, the accused abused and tried to beat him. In 1985 during the second crop season, accused 1, 2 and 4 along with the deceased forcibly harvested the crop standing on the land of the appellant. It is stated that the deceased even went to the extent of filing a suit against her father, the appellant (Public Witness 8 and brother (Public Witness 9 claiming that the land in dispute was in her possession. Her brother Public Witness 9 in turn filed a suit against the deceased and Public Witness 8. The appellant filed a criminal complaint against the deceased and the accused persons. Thus, there were civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.

(5) ON the intervening night of 6/09/1985 accused 1 to 3 are said to have attended the marriage celebrated in the house of Public Witness 1 and remained in the marriage house till morning of September 7 and when they came back to their house they, to their shock and surprise found a number of people gathered in front of their house and the body of the deceased lying in an easy chair. The fourth accused who is not a respondent in this appeal went to the police station and gave the report Ex. P. 14 to the Head Constable. Some nail marks and ;.-veiling over the neck, lips, chin and nose were noticed on the dead b.-.y A wi covered with a cap and pasted with a label inscribed Democran(i.e. pesticide) was found by the side of the dead body. The fourth accused stated in Ex. P. 14 that the deceased had committed suicide. Public Witness M registered the report. Thereafte