The appellate court must respect trial court acquittals unless the decision is unjust or based on erroneous law, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (‘Sessions Judge’ for brevity) in S.C.No.188 of 2015 dated 10.03.2016 whereunder the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for brevity) and Sections 3, 4 and 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP’ Act for brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2015, at 21.00 hours the complainant/PW.1/Agaboina Saraiah lodged a complaint stating that he has two daughters aged 20 years and 17 years respectively. The complainant is working as a Constable in Regonda Police Station. At that time his elder daughter by name Sagarika i.e., deceased victim used to attend college at Parkal. During the course of her college education, accused No.1 used to follow her in the name of love and finally married her on 03.02.2013. The couple lived amicably for some time. Thereafter, accused No.1 and his parents started harassing the victim alleging that she did not bring dowry and that she shall be allowed to stay at home only if she brings dowry. Victim informed about this harassment to the complainant and his wife. Accused Nos.1 to 3 also harassed the victim by pointing at her for belonging to S.T. Community. 2.2 It is alleged that accused No.1 has threatened victim of doing second marriage in case she does not get dowry from her parents by abusing and beating her. The complainant and others went to Peddampalli and gave Rs.1,00,000/- and requested the accused to look after the deceased and they lived well for sometime and thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 3 continued harassing her. The deceased/victim has made phone calls to the complainant and his wife and expressed apprehension that the accused Nos.1 to 3 would kill her for want of additional dowry. The complainant asked victim to come back to the house but she refused stating that she has brought dishonor to the family by going away and marrying Accused No.1. On 14.02.2015 at 05.00 p.m. when the complainant was on duty, a person by name Sambaiah made phone call and informed that victim committed suicide by hanging.

2.3. On receiving the information, the complainant took his wife, younger daughter and his sister-in-law and went to Peddampalli. When the complainant and his relatives reached Peddampalli, they saw the dead body of victim on a cot in the house of the accused. Hence, a complaint is lodged for necessary action against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for harassing the deceased for additional dowry which resulted in her suicide.

3. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant/State and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Accused.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed offence. The prosecution discharged their liability by proving entire case by examining the PW1 to PW14 and exhibit P1 to P10. However, the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. He further submitted that the PW1, who is none other than the father of the deceased victim, specifically stated about the harassment made by accused No.1 for dowry and PW1 in his averments specifically deposed that he went to the house of accused No.1 and handed over Rs.1,00,000/-. In spite of the same, without taking into consideration of the above said evidence of the PW1, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the p