JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Accused 1 & 2 in Sessions Case No.95 of 2013 on the file of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam are the appellants herein. Originally, they were tried for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.] or alternatively under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C and Section 498-A I.P.C.

2. By its judgment, dated 28.10.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 304-B I.P.C and sentenced each one of them to suffer Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. Further, both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w.34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 15.07.2012 at about 5.30 or 6.00 hours in the house of A.2 at Bathivanipalem Village, the accused caused the death of the deceased, within seven (7) years of the marriage, as she failed to fulfil the demand for additional dowry.

4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as under :-

(a) P.W.1 is the brother, while P.W.2 is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are residents of the same village. A.2 herein is the mother of A.1. P.W.6 also happens to be a relative of the deceased. As A.2 was searching for alliance to A.1, P.W.6 proposed the name of the deceased. After seeing the deceased, A.1 and A.2 conveyed their consent. Later, A.2 informed P.W.6 that they want a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry, one bike and three tulas of gold. The same was informed by P.W.6 to P.W.1, who in turn informed that they are prepared to give an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, one bike and two tulas of gold. When the same was informed to A.2, she requested for a meeting to be arranged in the house of P.W.1 and accordingly, the same was arranged. During negotiations, A.2 is said to have demanded Ac.1.00 cents of land towards dowry instead of Rs.2,50,000/- cash, but, P.W.1 offered Ac.0.70 cents of land, which was refused by A.2. Later, P.W.1 agreed to give Ac.1.00 cents of land towards dowry, Rs.60,000/- towards bike and two tulas of gold to the accused. Both the parties agreed for the marriage, which was performed on 25.02.2011 at Bathivanipalem Village.

(b) It is further stated that few days prior to the marriage, P.W.1 gave an undertaking with regard to giving Ac.1.00 cents of land and payment of cash to the village elder Bathi Ramana [not examined], who in turn handed over the same to A.1 at the time of marriage. However, two tulas of gold was given. After marriage, the deceased joined A.1 at the matrimonial home. Because of some differences with regard to payment of dowry, A.2 did not permit the deceased to visit their house to join A.1 and that A.2 used to make nasty comments for arranging such alliance. Later, the deceased joined A.1. According to P.W.6, the deceased used to express her dissatisfaction saying that her In-laws were ill-treating her badly and scolded P.W.6 for such alliance.

(c) While things stood thus, A.1 and the deceased shifted their residence to Visakhapatnam. However, the deceased was keeping in touch on phone with P.W.6 who was informed about the harassment of dowry by the accused. It is said that A.1 was having Mineral Water business in Visakhapatnam at Akkayapalem and four months after marriage, A.1 took a rented house at Tatichetlavanipalem and shifted his family. The evidence on record show that after marriage, the deceased used to inform P.W.1 and her family members about the harassment by A.1 and A.2 for additional dowry. But, however, they advised her to bear the same.

(d) It is said that in the year 2012, the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 for Sankranthi Festival and