JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, in S.C.No.246 of 2005, dated 22.02.2008, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that PW1 who is the father of the deceased filed complaint stating that he got his daughter married to the appellant, 8 months prior to the date of the incident i.e. in the month of April-2004 and as per the demand, a dowry of Rs.60,000/- cash, 8 ½ Tulas of gold, Bajaj scooter and other household articles were given. Though his daughter was looked after well for a period of five months after the marriage, the appellant and the acquitted accused who is mother-in-law (A2) started harassing her for Rs.20,000/- to buy an Auto. The said demand of Rs.20,000/- was conveyed to him by the deceased daughter. PW1 went to the house of PW1 on 29.11.2004 and invited his daughter and son-in-law(A1) to his house, but on the said date his deceased daughter was only sent along with him. On the next day i.e. on 30.11.2004 his son-in-law (A1) along with A3 came to his house and demanded Rs.20,000/- for purchasing Auto. After two days i.e. on 02.12.2004, PW1 by presenting clothes sent deceased and A1 to their house. On 20.12.2004 at about 9 p.m. PW1 was informed that his daughter was dead. When they went to see the dead body, he found wounds on the body of his daughter. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged which is Ex.P1. On the basis of the complaint the police conducted investigation and charge sheeted the appellant herein, his mother (A2) and his brother-in-law (A3).

3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 304 B of IPC against all the three accused and consequent to trial, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B if IPC, however acquitted A2 and A3.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is any amount of improvement from the complaint to the deposition before the Court. During the course of investigation one S.Pratap Reddy (PW3) and another person by name Radha Krishna (PW4) were introduced to corroborate the allegations of demand of Rs.20,000/-. PW3 is an interested witness and though PW4 was cited as witness having knowledge about the alleged demand, turned hostile to the prosecution case. The interestedness of PWs.1 to PW3 cannot be considered to sustain the conviction for the offence of dowry death.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was only 8 months prior to the alleged incident and admittedly there was a demand of Rs.20,000/-, prior to 20 days of her death for which reason the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shifts the burden on to the appellant to discharge his burden to say that he is not responsible for the suicide of his wife. In the said circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Judgment of Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.

6. As seen from the evidence on record, the marriage of the appellant with the deceased took place 8 months prior to the incident and there is a specific statement that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- for buying the Auto. The said demand of buying an Auto was made by the other acquitted appellants also. As seen from the complaint-Ex.P1, PW1 says that the appellant and others started harassing his daughter for giving an amount of Rs.20,000/- to buy an Auto. However, though this appellant and A2 and A3 together went to the house of PW1, there is no allegation made by PW1 in complaint that there was any kind of altercation or force to give the amount.

7. Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code reads as follows;

“304-B:Dowry death

1[304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than