IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for the accused to explain the injuries and the circumstances of the death, and highlighted the presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. - This appeal is filed by the de facto complainant, challenging the judgment dtd. 22/2/2012 passed in S.C.No.175 of 2011 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, who are Accused Nos.1 to 3 and who were charged with the offences punishable under Ss. 302 r/w. 34 and 302-B r/w.34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.

3. The case of the appellant is that he performed the marriage of his daughter (deceased) with Accused No.1 on 23/11/2009 by agreeing to pay dowry of Rs.1,50,000.00 and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 and also given a motorcycle to accused No.1 apart from jewelry items and other house hold articles. He also promised to pay the balance dowry amount of Rs.50,000.00 at the time of Diwali festival of 2010. The deceased and Accused No.1 lived happily for some time and thereafter, all the accused harassed the deceased with a demand for additional dowry and due to their unbearable harassment, the deceased went to her parents' house and stayed there for three months. On 10/11/2010, respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with their tenant, went to the house of appellant and took his daughter to the matrimonial house assuring that they will take care of her. On 14/11/2010 in the evening, the deceased telephoned to the appellant and informed about the harassment made by Accused Nos.1 to 3 (Respondent Nos.2 to 4) with a demand for additional dowry and that she was tortured by them and requested the appellant to take her back. As the appellant was on duty, he informed that he would come on the next day. But, on 15/11/2010 at 9 a.m., one Kadam Sanjay, the nephew of the appellant, informed over phone about the death of his daughter at the in-laws' place. Immediately, the appellant along with others went to the house of the accused and thereafter, he preferred report to the Police at Kuntala P.S., Adilabad District on 15/11/2010. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered against A-1 to A-3 vide Crime No.52 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of IPC.

4. It is the contention of the appellant that inspite of substantial evidence on record, the trial Court has acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the said judgment is illegal, arbitrary and against law, and therefore, prayed to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and to convict Accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein either for the offence under Sec. 304-B or 302 of IPC.

5. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused and benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused when there is substantial material on record against them. It is contended that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 categorically disclose that the accused have harassed the deceased, for additional dowry and killed her by throttling, which is corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor. The Court below ought to have drawn presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and ought to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC as there is sufficient evidence on record. Therefore, the learned counsel for appellant has prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has contended that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and extended benefit of doubt to the accused and therefore, there is no irregularity in the orders of the Sessions Judge and it needs no interference. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respo