JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants call in question the legality of convicting judgment dated 18.09.2009 of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Sessions Case No.458 of 2008. They and some of their relatives were prosecuted for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. On conclusion of the trial A.3 to A.5 were found not guilty and they were acquitted. However, A.1 and A.2 were found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. That A.1 and A.2 filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C alleging that the evidence did not establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the sickness suffered by the deceased was proved by evidence and the cruelty or harassment with reference to dowry was never established and the death was not proved as a definite result out of the injuries allegedly that were there on the dead body of the deceased. It is for these reasons, learned counsel for appellants seek to upset the impugned judgment and acquit the accused.

2. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submit that with cogent evidence all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. were established and the trial Court reached to appropriate conclusions and convicted the accused and there are no tenable grounds in this appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

3. Having considered the arguments on both sides and having perused the entire record, the point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the facts disclosed by the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was dowry death in terms of Section 304-B I.P.C.?”

4. Point: Crime No.111 of 2008 of Lalapet Law and Order Police Station, Guntur was investigated into by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur Town. On conclusion of the investigation, the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur which was registered as P.R.C.No.28 of 2008. After securing presence of the five accused and after furnishing copies of documents in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate, acting in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to Sessions Division. Learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur took cognizance for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. After hearing both sides, charge was framed accordingly. Accused pleaded not guilty. At the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. Incriminating evidence was confronted to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the response was that the evidence was incorrect and false. Thereafter, first accused entered the witness box and deposed as DW.1. During his evidence Exs.D.3 to D.11 were marked. For defence, during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. An extract of general diary was marked as Ex.C.1. The wearing apparel and ornaments of the deceased were seized and were exhibited at trial as MO.1 to MO.7. After considering the entire evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial Court found that the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. was established as against these two appellants and accordingly convicted them.

5. The man and his mother are appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Before the trial Court the man was A.1 and his mother was A.2. The victim in this case was Smt. J.Rajya lakshmi. To her, the 1st appellant was husband and the 2nd appellant was mother-in-law. The marriage of A.1 with the deceased woman was solemnized on 31.08.2007. The woman died in her matrimonial home on 27.04.2008. She was found dead at about 1:30 P.M. during day time. The matrimonial home is in 6th lane of Nalla Cheruvu of Guntur and the parental home of the deceased was in zero lane in the very same area of Nalla Cheruvu of Guntur.