IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment highlights the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the need for compelling reasons to reverse an acquittal.

JUDGMENT

K. Lakshman, J. - De facto - complainant filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment dated 20.06.2012 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar in Sessions Case No.471 of 2011 acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section - 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid S.C. No.471 of 2011, while the appellant herein is the de facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased - Rajeshwari.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned in S.C. No.471 of 2011.

4. The case of the prosecution is as under:

i) The deceased - Smt. Rajeshwari and accused No.1 fell in love and the same was brought to the notice of elders of both parties, and the elders of both parties agreed to perform their marriage;

ii) Accordingly, on 03.02.10, the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was performed at 'Shivalam' Temple in Nagireddipalli Village.

iii) At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased did not give any dowry;

iv) After the marriage, the couple lived together happily for one month and, thereafter, accused No.1, his mother - accused No.2 and his elder brother - accused No.3 started harassing the deceased to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents to drill a bore well so as to cultivate the lands since no dowry was given at the time of marriage;

v) One week prior to the incident, the deceased went to her parents house for the marriage of her sister and informed her parents, PWs.1 and 2 about the harassment meted out to her by the accused. Then, her father, PW.1 informed her that since he performed the marriage of her sister, he is unable to pay the amount and assured her that he would arrange the same after harvesting the paddy crop. Three (03) days prior to the incident, the deceased went to her in-laws house;

vi) On 09.04.2010, the accused lifted dung heap to their fields, which is adjacent to the land of PW.1. During night between 8 to 9 P.M., PW.1 went to his agriculture fields to watch the crop and prevent damage from the wild boars wherein he found one lady committed suicide by hanging to a babool tree at the bank of his agriculture well. He went there and identified her as his daughter, Rajeshwari.

vii) Thus, Accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed the deceased demanding to get dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Due to the constant harassment of the accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 09.04.2010 night.

viii) On the next day i.e., 10.04.2010 at 09.30 hours, PW.1 went to Bomraspet Police Station and gave a report. On receipt of the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2010 under Section - 304B of IPC and investigated into the matter.

5. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section -304B and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was taken on file vide S.C. No.471 of 2011 for the said offence.

6. The trial Court framed charge under Section - 304B of IPC against both the accused. The accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.

7. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses viz., PWs.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P12 documents and MO.1. No evidence was let in on behalf of the accused.

8. On completion of trial and on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the aforesaid charge framed against them and accordingly acquitted them of the aforesaid charge.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said acquittal, the de facto complainant preferred the present appeal.

10. Heard Ms. P. Prashamsha, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - de facto complainant and Mr. Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State. However, none appears for responde