Smt. Justice Anis, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.125 of 2005 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, whereunder and whereby the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same.

2. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the revision petitioner/de facto complainant aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

Accused No.1 is the son of Accused Nos.2 and 3. One A.Santhi (hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’) is the daughter of the de facto complainant J.S.Kumaraswamy Modiliar. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A.1 on 02.06.2002 as per Hindu customs in G.R.M. Kalyanamadapam, Nagari. At the time of marriage, parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.15,000/- and three sovereigns of gold chain to A.1 and 8 ½ sovereigns of jewels to the deceased apart from the household articles. After marriage, the deceased joined A.1 and they lived together happily for about six months. Thereafter, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. In the meanwhile, on 07.10.2004, the deceased gave birth to twins. At that time, A.1 to A.3 demanded the parents of the deceased to pay Rs.7,000/- towards hospital expenses. But, due to poverty, the father of the deceased offered to give only Rs.4,000/-. Having not satisfied with that amount, the accused refused to receive the same. After discharge from the hospital, the deceased went to her in-laws house, but from then, A.1 to A.3 were not in good terms with the deceased.

While so, on 09.11.2004 at about 12.00 midnight, A.1 informed the father of the deceased that his daughter was in serious condition. Immediately, the parents of the deceased and other relatives came down to the house of the accused and found the deceased died with burns. Having suspected with regard to the cause of death of the deceased, father of the deceased (PW1) gave a complaint in Puttur Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.138 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, on requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW10), Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur (PW7) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars at the house of the accused. PW10 sent the dead body of the deceased to post-mortem examination.

The Inspector of Police (PW11) took up investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, seized material objects under the cover of observation report, prepared rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence. The doctor (PW8), who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to vital organ (brain) and burns are postmortem in nature.

During the course of investigation, it reveals that the accused misled the Investigating Officer stating that the deceased set fire to herself and died, further they did not speak about the injuries and in order to screen the evidence, they poured kerosene after the death of the deceased and set fire to the body as if the deceased committed suicide. Further, A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry by way of medical expenses. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed the charge sheet into the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 498-A and 302 read with 34 I.P.C.

4. The trial Court framed the following Charges against the accused:

“Firstly, tha