JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 26.07.2007 rendered by the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Adilabad, in Sessions Case No.161 of 2007, through which the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them, the appellant is before this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. were made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge by not appreciating the evidence properly and based on assumptions and presumptions acquitted the respondents-accused; that the learned judge ought to have observed that independent witnesses would not be available for the things that would happen within the four walls of the house; and that the learned judge failed to observe that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage at her in-laws house and thus, the acquittal of the respondents-accused is unsustainable and as such, the appeal has to be allowed.

3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

4. Now the points that arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the prosecution emerged successful in proving beyond all reasonable doubt that Smt. Donipally Surekha died otherwise than under normal circumstances and that, soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondents-accused in connection with the demand of dowry.

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point No.1:

The matrix of the prosecution case, as could be culminated from the charge sheet, is that P.W-1 has three daughters and two sons and the deceased-Donipally Surekha (for brevity, hereinafter referred as “the deceased”) is his third daughter and P.W-1 performed the marriage of the deceased with the first accused on 05.04.2006 paying net cash of Rs.8,000/- and promising to give half tula of gold after the marriage, but the deceased and the first accused enjoyed their family life for a period of five days only and later, on the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 4, the first accused started harassing the deceased for half tula of gold that was promised to be given by her parents and the deceased due to the said harassment, vexed with her life, decided to commit suicide and accordingly, on 15.4.2006, at about 6.30 pm., she poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze, due to which, she received burn injuries all over the body and she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Adilabad, for treatment and that on 20.4.2006, she died while undergoing treatment.

6. A perusal of record of the trial Court reveals that the learned judge of the trial Court, subjecting to the test of credibility the evidence produced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary, came to a conclusion that there is no clear material on record and cogent evidence to show that the accused harassed the deceased and thereby, she has committed suicide and with the said finding, the learned judge found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, he acquitted them.

7. Now, to answer the challenge of the appellant and to verify whether the grounds urged in the appeal are sustainable to allow this appeal and to set aside the judgment of the trial Court, this Court has to subject the entire investigation to strict scrutiny.

8. The crucial witnesses to this case are P.Ws.1 to 5. P.Ws.1 to