NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A1 to A3, A5 and A7 in SC No. 95/94 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, are the appellants. Crl. RC No. 478 of 1998 is filed against the acquittal of A6 and AS. A4 died and the case against her abated. Al to A3, A5 to A8 were tried on four charges framed under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A1 to A3, A5 and A7 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Al to A3, A5 and A7 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. Al to A3, A5 and A7 were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 on each count. A6 and A8 were acquitted of all the charges. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the accused is that; on the intervening night of 9/10-7-1992 between 10. 30 p. m. and 4 a. m. at Bangalow street, Rajampet, they caused the death of Laxmi Devi (hereinafter referred to as Dl) by using violence on her neck, chest and throat and also caused the death of Kedarnath Reddy (hereinafter referred to as D2) by smothering.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution briefly stated is that Al is a practising advocate at Rajampet. A2 and A3 are his parents. A4 to A7 are his sisters. A8 is his younger brother, D1 is the younger sister of Matli Gangi Reddy (PW1 ). Matli Venkata Lakshumma (PW2) is the wife of PW1. The marriage of A1 with Dl took place on 3-12-1989. About two months prior to the date of marriage, PWs. l, 2, Yeruva Krishnaiah (PW4) and Mallu Venkata Subba Reddy (PW5) went to the house of A2 and saw A1. Subsequently a week later, A1 to A3 came to their house to see D1. PWs. 4 and 5 acted as mediators. It is said that Al to A3 demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 and 30 tolas of gold, which was settled for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and 20 tolas of gold. The betrothal ceremony took place after 5 days, and on mat day, they demanded half of the dowry, but the said amount was not paid. However, ornaments for the 20 tolas were made. On 3-12-1989 at about 11. 45 a. m. the marriage between Al and Dl was celebrated at Satyanarayan Choultry at Rajampet. On the date of marriage, PWs. l, 4 and 5 went to the house of A1 and paid a cash of Rs. 1,00,000 to A3. The receipts with regard to gold ornaments were also handed over. It is said that about a month after the marriage, D1 was sent to the house of A1. At that time, all accused had asked D1 about the gold waist belt and hand vankey (ornament used at upper arm), which she was wearing at the time of marriage. It is said that Al, A3 and A8 asked PW1 to give his Hero Honda Motor Cycle, which he refused. The accused started ill-treating Dl for the vehicle and for gold ornaments. Subsequently, the marriage of Shubavathi one of the daughter of A3 was fixed and for that they had asked PWs. 1 and 2 to bring gold waist belt and vankey to adorn the bride, but they did not bring them. It is said that because of this, the accused were harassing Dl. In the sixth month of pregnancy, PW1 brought Dl to his house on 18-10-1990. She delivered a male child who was named as Kedarnath Reddy. After the birth of the child, the accused did not visit their house for nine months. In the ninth month, PW1 sent PWs. 4 and 5 to the house of the accused for asking him to take Dl to their house. The accused did not go to take the deceased. On the advice of one Dr. Bomdy Reddy (not examined), PW1 took two tolas of gold black bead chain and a few gold bangles and sent Dl and D2 along with those ornaments. It is said that Dl used to complain that the accused used to harass her for not getting gold waist belt, vankey and motor cycle. PW2 took Dl to her house for Ugadi festival. After 10 days, she left her back with her husband. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document