JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.38 of 2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) and by its judgment dated 03.10.2007, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is now under challenge in this appeal. The record consists of the evidence of PWs.1 to 19, and the documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.28 on behalf of the prosecution. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:

A.1, son of A.2 and A.3, married the deceased, Matcha Lakshmi, sister of PW.1, on 28.04.2004. At the time of marriage, Rs.50,000/- was paid as dowry and Rs.30,000/- towards household articles. After a brief period of marital life, A.1 to A.3 subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment because she was issueless, had no parents, and did not bring money or gifts. Unable to bear the continued harassment, on 11.09.2005 at about 3.00 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. She sustained severe burn injuries and was shifted to the Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam, where her statement and dying declaration were recorded. She later succumbed to the injuries. Investigation, inquest, post-mortem, and chemical analysis confirmed death due to burn injuries and the presence of kerosene. The investigation revealed harassment for additional dowry, rendering A.1 to A.3 liable for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

4. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, vide orders in P.R.C.No.3 of 2006, has committed the accused to the Court of Sessions, Srikakulam Division, to take up the trial for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the IPC.

5. The Court of Sessions, Srikakulam Division, has taken cognizance of the case filed under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused and has registered it as Sessions Case No. 38 of 2006. The matter has been referred to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for disposal in accordance with law. After hearing both the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the Trial Court framed a charge against the accused under Section 304B of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, as mandated by Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to enable them to consider the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and also against them. However, the accused denied the evidence adduced by the prosecution and reported no defence witnesses.

7. After considering the available material on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and acquitted them.

8. Sir K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, contends that the prosecution has clearly established all the essential ingredients constituting an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC against the accused; the learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses; it is evident from the dying declaration of the deceased, as well as from the testimony of the supporting prosecution witnesses, that the accused was solely responsible for the death of the deceased; despite the prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused, the learned Judge, without assigning adequate weight to the prosecution’s case, proceeded to acquit them; the additional reasons given by the learned Judge for the acquittal are also asserted to be unsustainable.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel