1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment dated 01-4-2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari district, in SC.No. 85 of 2002 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences under section 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State-appellant and Sri M. Lakshmana Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows:

The marriage of Kalidindi Chinnathalli @ Simhachalam, hereinafter called as the “deceased” was performed three years prior to her death with A-1. A-2 is the father of A1. A-3 and A-4 are the sisters of A-1. The deceased is no other than the sister’s daughter of A-2, who was married to A-1.

According to the prosecution, at the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased agreed to pay dowry of Rs.6000/- before the elders, paid an amount of Rs.3000/- and subsequently it is said that A-1 to A-4 were harassing the deceased to get the balance amount of dowry. It was further alleged by the prosecution that as the deceased did not beget children for a period of three years after the marriage, they were harassing the deceased by calling her “barren woman”. It was further alleged that there used to be quarrels between the deceased and A-1 due to which the deceased came back to her parents house and subsequently she was taken by A-1 to his house during which time the parents of the deceased advised A-1 and the deceased to live peacefully without quarrel1.

According to the prosecution on 05-11-2000 at 09:00 p.m., A-1 called the deceased for pressing the harvested tobacco and the deceased did not attend the said work, as she was suffering from fever. As per the prosecution version, A-1 and A-2 insulted the deceased by calling her as “barren woman”.

That on the morning of 06-11-2000, A-1 and A-2 again harassed the deceased by calling her as “barren woman” due to which she suffered mental agony, poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire with a view to commit suicide. She sustained severe injuries and was admitted in Government Hospital, Kakinada on the same day. Subsequently on 12-11-2000 at about 08:10 a.m. the deceased died in the hospital of burn injuries while undergoing treatment.

That on 07-11-2000 at about 12:30 p.m., PW-11 the Head Constable of Kakinada I-Town Police Station on receiving the intimation from the Hospital authorities rushed to the hospital and basing on the statement of the deceased registered a case in Crime No. 102 of 2000 but subsequently the case was transferred to Jaggampet Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and the subsequent investigation was taken up by the Police Jaggampet. PW-15 the Sub-Inspector of Police altered the section of law in the FIR from woman burns to section 174 Cr.P.C. and then to sections 306, 498-A r/w section 34 of IPC.

4. Before the learned trial Court, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondents-accused examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P22 besides MOs1 to 3. The respondents-accused did not propose to examine any defence witnesses but marked Exs.D-1 to D-5 contradictions.

5. The learned trial Court upon considering the evidence on record acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences under section 306, 498-A IPC read with section 34 IPC.

6. Assailing the said order of acquittal, the State preferred the present criminal appeal.

7. PW-1 the father of the deceased stated in his evidence about settling the dowry relating to the marriage of the deceased with A-1 at Rs.6000/- and his paying Rs.3000/-. He also stated about the respondents-accused harassing the deceased for the balance of dowry amount and also insulting her on the ground that she was “issueless”. PW-2 the mother of the deceased though stated about the payment of dowry, her version is that it was paid in the presence of village elders bu