JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years vide judgment in Sessions Case No.545 of 2008, dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. Deceased was married to A1. At the time of marriage Rs 70,000/- was demanded as dowry. Rs.45,000/- cash was given, keeping balance of Rs.25,000/- and also one gold ring. The deceased was treated affectionately for three months and thereafter, the appellant and his parents who are acquitted accused, started harassing for additional dowry. The deceased informed P.W.1 on phone that the appellant and others were harassing. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and brought her back. A1 was questioned as to why he was beating the deceased. A1 informed that the deceased was mentally retarded. PW1 stated that the deceased informed that the appellant and three others who were acquitted were harassing for additional dowry. The deceased was taken to their house and stayed there for one month. After one month, the appellant went to their house. He was presented with cash of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for purchasing a cot. Thereafter, they were happy for one month. However, the deceased again called and informed that the appellant was harassing mentally and physically for dowry.

3. A panchayat was held as the appellant and A4 beat the deceased. It was informed by deceased that when she questioned about the appellant and A4 sleeping on the same cot, deceased was beaten saying that she was mentally retarded. After some days, PWs.1 and 2 received information that the deceased was in hospital. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the hospital and found the deceased dead. P.W.1 filed a complaint with the police narrating the facts suspecting that the deceased was kicked on her stomach and was killed. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the appellant/A1 was having affair with A4. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered and investigated. Charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 17 and marking Exs.P1 to P18 came to conclusion that the appellant and other accused were not guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 2 to 4 were also acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant had beaten the deceased indiscriminately before her death. Injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and for the said reason of indiscriminate beating, she committed suicide. Therefore, the prosecution established offence under Section 304-B of IPC against Appellant/A1.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that except for the interested evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other evidence to corroborate the allegation of any harassment to attract the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

6. It was further argued that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that she was beaten before the death will not attract the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Angirekula Ramakrishna v. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor (2007)(2) ALT (CRI.) 311 (S.B). This Court while deciding a case under Section 304-B of IPC held that to attract an offence under Section 304-B of IPC, harassment for dowry should be proximate to the death.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent regarding harassment that was meted out. In fact, the postmortem report clearly indicates that there were three ante-mortem injuries on the body of