The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence of harassment 'soon before death' to sustain a conviction under IPC 304-B, and the need for independent corroboration of allegations.

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred against judgment in S.C.No.630 of 2020 on the file of the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accused 2 & 3 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The Accused Nos.4 and 5 were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and were acquitted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased filed a complaint on 08.03.2015 stating that he performed his daughter’s (deceased) marriage with A1. He agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- dowry and towards Rs.12,00,000/- of the said dowry, 92 sq.yds of land was given and for the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 20 tulas of gold was given and the marriage was performed. The deceased daughter was happy for one year and she gave birth to one female child on 20.03.2011. Since the birth of the female child, the first appellant-husband and the parents-in-law i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the acquitted Accused Nos.4 and 5, who are the bothers of Accused No.1, harassed the deceased mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. P.W.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/-, 80,000/-and Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- to A1 to A3. P.W.1 informed that he cannot pay remaining amount, as such, the deceased was beaten, for which reason, a panchayat was held. However, there was no change in the attitude of the appellants. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with Tappachaputra Police Station. The police reprimanded the appellants. However, after two months, the appellants started harassing again for additional dowry. For the said reason, a panchayath was held in the presence of P.Ws.6 to 10. Since P.W.1 and A2 are own brother and sister, they wanted to settle the issue within the family. However, in the presence of the said witnesses, P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry to the appellants. In the month of January 2015, A1 and the deceased shifted their house to Nagole and started living separately. A2 and A3 visited the house of the deceased and A1 harassed to get half share in the property of her father P.W.1. On 07.03.2015 at 8.00 a.m, the deceased called P.W.1 enquiring about P.Ws.1 and 2 and disconnected phone. On the same day, around 4.00 p.m, one Venkat Swamy informed that the deceased committed suicide. Thereafter, inquest and scene of offence panchanama were conducted. P.W.1 lodged a written Telugu complaint Ex.P1 before the Police Station, B.B.Nagar, wherein First Information Report in Cr.No.284 of 2015 was registered against the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and also against the acquitted A4 and A5.

3. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. No documents are marked nor any witnesses examined on behalf of the accused in defence. During the course of Section 313 examination, all the accused/appellants denied the allegations leveled against them.

4. On considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted as stated supra.

5. Heard Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudharshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a false case is filed against the appellants herein. P.W.1 and A2 are own brother and sister and P.W.1 pleaded with the appellants to marry his daughter