(D.S.R. Varma, J,)

Heard Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-sole accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

2. Sole accused before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad, having been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,0001- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offences under Section 302lPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5001-, in default to seller rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC filed the present criminal appeal.

3. The case of prosecution is that on 13-4-2003 at about 12.30 p.m., one Abdul Raheem (P.W. 13), the father of one Rayeesa Begum (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), went to Bhainsa town police station and lodged a complaint to the elect that on 17-4-2000 he performed the marriage of his daughter Rayeesa Begum with the accused by giving Rs.15,000/-, some gold ornaments and other household articles; that subsequently, about 15 days thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased for additional dowry; that in spite of the conciliation made through elders, the accused did not change his attitude; that on one day, when there was a demand from the accused, the deceased went to P.W. 13, who is her father, and brought Rs. 3,0001-; that similarly, on two occasions the same type of demand was made by the accused and the same was satisfied and ultimately, when there was demand for Rs. 10,0001- from the accused, the same could not be fulfilled because of their inability; that on 13-4-2003, in the morning, the sister-in-law of P.W. 13 informed him over telephone about the death of deceased; that thereupon, P.W. 13 and his family members went to Bhainsa and saw his daughter dead and they expressed a doubt that she might have been killed by the accused since she did not bring the dowry amount, as demanded; that a case in Crime No. 27 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was registered; that PW. 15(MRO) visited the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of deceased; that P.W. 12 along with one Dr. S. Rajeshwar Rao (LW. 21) conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of deceased and opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation; and that therefore, the conclusion has been arrived at that the accused-husband alone was responsible for the death of deceased and also demand of additional dowry. Therefore, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.

4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC., against the accused and the same were read over and explained to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 17 and got marked Exs. P-1toP-14. M.a. 1 towel was also exhibited.

6. The trial Court, after examination of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had recorded a finding that the accused alone was responsible for the death of his deceased wife and was also demanding for further dowry, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.

7. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of interested witnesses; that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant; that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there was no worthwhile case or complaint against the appellant with regard to the harassment and that the learned Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant based on assumption and presumptions.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sup