JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.03.2012, in S.C.No.182 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Warangal, Warangal District, convicting the appellants/accused under Section 304-B of IPC, however, acquitting them of the alternate charge framed under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent – State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with Rajitha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on 30.03.2008, and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.70,000/-, gold, silver jewelry and other house hold articles were given as dowry. Accused No.1 and deceased were happy for three months and thereafter, she was harassed physically and mentally for getting an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards additional dowry. The ill-treatment was informed by the deceased, to her parents.

4. The parents and brothers of the deceased, who were examined as PWs.1 to 4, convinced accused No.1 that they would initially arrange the amount of Rs.15,000/-, and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- in due course of time. On 04.11.2008, both accused No.1 and deceased, went to the house of parents of the deceased and stayed for one day. On 06.11.2008, in the morning hours, accused No.1 and the deceased left. On the very same day, in the evening, information was given to the parents and the brothers that the deceased died. PWs.1 to 4 went to the house of appellants, and found the dead body of deceased with injuries on her fingers and legs. Suspecting that the death of the deceased was homicidal, a complaint was lodged by PW.1.

5. The police investigated the case and filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 -B of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section

302 of IPC and alternatively under Section 304-B of IPC.

6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 6, who are brothers, parents, and other relatives of the deceased gave evidence regarding the alleged harassment of the appellants for additional dowry. The cross-examination was sought to be deferred. However, the learned Sessions Judge refused to defer cross-examination and recorded the cross-examination as nil. Thereafter, by filing an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the witnesses were recalled. After recalling the witnesses, PW.1 stated that, he and his family members did not have any grievance against the appellants and in fact both accused No.1 and the deceased were living amicably. PWs.1 to 6 further admitted during cross-examination, that the deceased was suffering with stomach pain and due to unbearable pain, she committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison.

7. There are two sets of evidence before the trial Court. In chief examination, witnesses alleged that the deceased was harassed physically and mentally for additional dowry.

However, during the cross-examination, they totally changed their version from what was stated in the chief-examination and deposed that there was never any harassment and the deceased committed suicide on account of unbearable stomach pain.

8. After the witnesses supported the accused in their cross-examination, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not take any steps to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground of hostility. It is for the Public Prosecutor to question his witnesses, when the witnesses produced by him resiled from their earlier statements. PWs.1 to 6 are self-condemned witnesses, who have no respect for truth. They have stated two different versions at two different stages of the case. Their evidence cannot be considered selectively on the ground that, whatever was stated by them in the chief examination is correct, and assuming that the witnesses were won over after the chief-examination, and they were made to speak in favour