The requirement of substantial evidence of dowry-related harassment is essential to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, which the prosecution failed to demonstrate.

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for appellants - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. Crl.A. No.953 of 2016 is filed by the appellant - accused No.1 challenging the judgment dated 26.08.2016 in S.C. No.142 of 2012 passed by learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vikarabad, while Crl.A. No.860 of 2016 is filed by the appellants - accused Nos.2 to 5, challenging the very same judgment.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellants - accused for the offence under Section 304 -B of IPC , and accordingly sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

4. The case of the prosecution is as under:

i) Deceased - Laxmi is the native of Thatipally Village, Munipally Mandal of Medak District and PW.1 is her father. Appellant - accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased, while accused Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws, accused No.4 is the sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is the husband of accused No.4. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the residents of Marpally Village, while accused Nos.4 and 5 are the residents of Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

ii) PW.1 performed the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 on 16.05.2010 at 12.30 hours at ZPHS, Thatipally Village as per their customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave net cash of Rs.4,50,000/-, 20 tulas of gold and other utensils as dowry. They lived together happily for about one year.

iii) All the accused harassed the deceased, both mentally and physically for additional dowry and sent the deceased to her parent’s house to bring additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs. PW.1 and the deceased went to the accused house, convinced them and left the deceased in her in-laws house.

iv) On 22.08.2011 in the evening hours, PW.1 came to know that the deceased vexed with her life committed suicide by hanging at her in-laws house due to unbearable harassment of accused. Thus, all the accused committed the offence punishable under Section - 304-B of IPC .

v) On receipt of Ex.P1 - Telugu written complaint from PW.1, PW.12 - the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Marpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2011 under Section - 304-B of IPC and issued Ex.P11 - FIR and handed over the CD file to PW.13, who took up investigation. PW.13 examined the relevant witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, Pw.14 laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Since the said offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the said case vide P.R.C. No.18 of 2012 to the District Court, who in turn made over to the trial Court vide S.C. No.142 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304 -B of for trial.

5. The trial Court framed charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

6. During trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MO.1 was exhibited to prove its case. On behalf of the accused, no evidence was let in, both oral and documentary.

7. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, all the accused were examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellants herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed life imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, the appellants preferred the present appeals.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused Nos.1 to 5 contended as follows:

i) There are contradictions and omissions in the depositions of prosecution