J U D G M E N T:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6, questioning the Judgment dated 15.12.2010, in S.C.No.131 of 2009, passed by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, at Kamareddy (for short, “trial Court”), wherein, the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and 1 year, respectively.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Sri Potti Sailu/PW.1 is the elder brother of Porkampeta Anitha @ Poleramma (deceased). The marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased was performed in the year 2006, and at the time of marriage, 30 tulas of silver ornaments and Rs.30,000/- cash were given as dowry. Accused Nos.1 to 6 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. The said information was given by the deceased to PW.1. Further, the deceased met her mother on the Bonalu festival on 27.02.2007, near the Yellamma temple accidentally, and informed that accused No.1 was forcing her to get Rs.20,000/-, failing which, she would be killed by the accused. On the next day, the accused No.1 informed PW.1 and others that the deceased consumed poison, and was shifted to the hospital. When PW.1 and others went to the hospital, the deceased was declared dead by the doctor. A Telugu written complaint was filed by PW.1 on 28.02.2007, based on which, PW.11- Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagireddypet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2007, and the investigation was taken over by PW.12-Inspector of Police. PW.12 went to PW.1 and then conducted part of the investigation. Then, the body was sent for Post-Mortem Examination (PME) and it was revealed that the deceased died due to Organophosphate insecticide poison. PW.12 arrested accused Nos.1 to 6 and after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

4. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to 9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

5. Learned Sessions Judge found that the death of the deceased was within 7 years of marriage, and there was an allegation of harassment for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, convicted the appellants/accused Nos1 to 6. In the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, they consistently stated that at the time of marriage, Rs.30,000/- was given as dowry and there was harassment for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/-. According to the witnesses, this information was given to them by the deceased.

6. Not a single instance was narrated by any of the witnesses regarding the accused directly demanding an additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- from PW.1 or any other relative of the deceased. As already stated, the information regarding the demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- was given by the deceased. In fact, regarding the demand for arrangement of Rs.20,000/- dowry was also informed by the deceased, but no demand was made directly by any of the accused. It was admitted by PW.1 that there was no complaint regarding harassment, either to the police or to any of the elders, and also no panchayats were held. PW-1 also admitted that since childhood, the deceased suffered with mogulla pain and beedi marks were put on forehead and on either side of her abdomen. He also admitted that if there are any disputes, the matter would be referred to village elders for settlement in their community.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 6 relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in “Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana”, [(2019) 8 SCC 128], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression, “soon before her death” used i