JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Accused 1 to 5 in Sessions Case No.322 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, ‘I.P.C.”] and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Vide judgment, dated 19.03.2008, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the offences levelled against them. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/State.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, is as under :

(i) The deceased is the wife of A1, while A2 and A3 are the parents of A1, A4 and A5. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the younger sister, while P.W.4 is the elder sister of the deceased. The marriage of the accused with the deceased took place in the year 2002 at Palakol. At the time of marriage, A1 was working as an Electrician at Duvva. It is said that at the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 presented an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 21 sovereigns of gold as dowry and also Rs.60,000/- towards ‘Saare Samons’. After the marriage, the deceased joined her in-laws house to lead a marital life. The deceased used to come to the house of her parents occasionally and during such visits, she used to inform about the demands made for additional dowry by A1.

(ii) After the marriage of the deceased with the accused, the marriage of the elder sister of the deceased was also performed, but the deceased and A1 did not attend the same. It is said that the accused refused to send the deceased to the marriage of her elder sister.

(iii) About five or six months prior to the incident, Vakada Atcharao, who is the father of deceased, P.W.2, P.W.5 and others went to the house of A1 for mediation in view of the demand made by the accused for money and talked with A1 to A3. The demand of money was for establishing Cell Phone business by A1. The father of the deceased requested some time for payment of money, but A1 to A3 seems to have stated that if no money is given, they can as well take away their daughter to their house. Mediations took place for two hours, but did not materialize and accordingly, they left the house of A1 without taking the deceased.

(iv) While things stood thus, on 23.04.2006, A4 informed the father of deceased on phone that the deceased fell in bathroom due to heart pain and that she was being shifted to hospital. Ten minutes later, again a phone call came to the father of the deceased, informing the death of the deceased and also requested him to take the body of the deceased. On receipt of the said information, the father of the deceased fell unconscious. Thereafter, the other family members went to the house of the accused. The father of the deceased gained conscious at later point of time and suspecting foul play behind the incident, lodged a report after taking advice of an advocate in drafting the report. Ex.P1 is the said report.

(v) Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.44 of 2006 of Tanuku Rural Police Station was registered against the accused. After registering the crime, P.W.14 investigated into the matter, proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of P.W.13, prepared scene observation report, which is marked as Ex.P4. At the scene, he seized M.O.1.

(vi) On the next day i.e., on 24.04.2006 at about 7.30 A.M., P.W.14 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.13. Ex.P5 is the Inquest Report. After completing the inquest, the body was sent to Post Mortem Examination. P.W.10-doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P3 Post Mortem Certificate. According to him, the cause of death was ‘due to asphyxia due to hanging.’

(vii) P.W.14, who continued with the investigation, arrested A1 to A4 on 24.04.2006 at about 10.30 A.M., and A5 on 28.04.2006 at 12.00 Noon. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came