The judgment emphasizes the need to establish the proximity of cruelty or harassment for dowry to the victim's death, as well as the interpretation of relevant provisions in IPC and the Evidence Act.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304b and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc' ). Sentence of seven years was imposed on each count. By the impugned judgment conviction recorded in respect of co-accused laxmi was set aside and she was directed to by acquitted.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows: padma @ Pitchamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was married to accused No. 1-Srinivasulu on 21. 5. 1989. At the time of marriage, PW. 1 father of the deceased gave rupees 10,000 in cash, five tolas of gold, other household articles worth rs. 3000 and Rs. 1200 towards clothes to accused No. 1, who was employed as sub-staff of Karnataka Bank, Secunderabad. Accused No. 2 is the mother of accused No. 1 and she used to visit accused No. 1 in the city and did not allow the deceased to fulfil conjugal obligations. At the instigation of accused No. 2, accused No. 1 had demanded Rs. 5,000 more from the parents of the deceased to purchase a Scooter as additional dowry. PW. 1, father of the deceased paid the said amount to accused no. 1. In spite of the same, both the accused made repeated demands for additional dowry upon the deceased. On one occasion, a sum of Rs. 1,000 and on another occasion a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid by pw. 1 to the accused. But the accused persons did not stop ill-treatment and harassment towards the deceased. After some time, when the deceased and her parents came to know that accused No. 2 was thinking of a second marriage of accused No. 1, immediately they went to the house of the accused but accused No. 1 refused to take the deceased into the house. Accused No. 2 ill-treated the deceased and both the accused asked the deceased to go back to her parents' house. Accused No. 1 threatened to immolate the deceased and accused No. 2 threatened to poison the deceased and insisted that she continues to stay in the house of her parents. Therefore, the deceased was taking shelter in the house of her parents and about 2 months prior to the incident, on the assurance given by both the accused before the elders, the deceased joined accused Nos. 1 and 2 to fulfil conjugal obligations. In spite of the same, the, accused continued ill-treatment and harassment for more dowry. Because of the persistent ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the accused towards the deceased, on 17. 9. 1992 at about 9. 30 a. m. the deceased set herself ablaze and died with 100% burn injuries in Gandhi Hospital while undergoing treatment. First information report was filed, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed. Accused persons pleaded innocence.

( 3 ) TO establish its accusations prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 16 documents were exhibited. PWs. 1 and 2 were the father and mother of the deceased respectively while PWS was a relative. PW4 was a brother of the deceased while PW5 was the sister of the deceased. PW 6 was a caste elder. PW 10 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy while PW 11 was the investigating officer. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned II additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304b and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 with default stipulation. The acquitted co-accused A2 i. e. the mother of the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Though the accused person was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 498a no separate sentence was imposed. Questioning correctness of the trial court's judgment, an appeal was preferred before the High Court by both the accused. It was essentially the stand of the appellant before the High Court that there was no material to show any dema