Point of Law: In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304-B IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498-A of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment in SC No.138 of 2009, dated 27.07.2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. The appellant is the husband of the deceased. The acquitted accused i.e., A2 and A3 are the mother and brother of A1/appellant herein. According to the prosecution case, P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased filed a complaint stating that the appellant was married to his sister. At the time of marriage, Rs.2,50,000/- towards dowry and 5 ½ tulas gold and other household articles were given. Both lead normal marital life for a period of six months. However, the appellant started harassing the deceased physically and mentally stating that he would marry second time. For the said reason, panchayat was held on 24.09.2006 in the presence of P.Ws.3, 6, 7 and 9 and other elders. In the said panchayat, the appellant executed an agreement before the elders that he would look after the deceased well and will not marry another woman. However the harassment continued and the deceased was harassed for additional dowry, 15 days prior to the incident. P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant. On 31.05.2008, the appellant called when the deceased was in the house of P.W.1 and asked her to get back. P.W.1 received a phone call from Bhoomaiah, who informed that the deceased died an unnatural death. The police after investigation filed charge sheet on the allegation that on 01.06.2008, the appellant, A2 and A3 throttled the deceased and threw her in the agricultural well of one Chakali Somaiah, which is at a distance of 250 yards from their house and created a scene of suicide. The police could not arrive at a conclusion whether the deceased committed suicide or whether the death was homicidal, for which reason police filed charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the death was suicidal and convicted the appellant as stated above and acquitted A2 and A2 for all the offences.

4. The learned Sessions Judge found that six months after the Panchayat that was held, the appellant started harassing the deceased for Rs.50,000/- and unable to bear his harassment, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are two first information reports in this case and the first FIR was suppressed. During the course of examination of P.W.1, he specifically mentioned that as on the date of incident, ten family members went to the village and while going to the village of the appellant, they lodged police complaint in PS Huzurabad stating that the deceased was found missing. The said complaint was suppressed by the prosecution and whether the FIR was registered or not has to be explained by the prosecution. When the missing compliant is filed it corroborates with the defence version that the deceased might have accidentally fallen into the well and since she was not found, a missing complaint was given. He further submits that P.Ws.1 to 4 who are interested witnesses have supported the prosecution case. However, P.Ws.5 to 9 have turned hostile to the prosecution case and P.W.13 who was an elder in the Panchayat stated about the dowry and also advise given to the deceased and the appellant to lead a cordial life. The very genesis of the case of the prosecution is suppressed by the prosecution for which reason, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Further, the allegation made against this app