THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.614 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-

06-2014 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bodhan in S.C.No.371 of 2011 on the file of the VII Addl. District and Sessions Court, Bodhan by the appellant whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge further convicted and sentenced A1 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was ordered that both sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. T.Sujan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State. Perused the record.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below:

Father of the deceased Sravanthi, Koti Rajulu, lodged a complaint with the police, Nizamsagar on 05-03-2011 stating that he performed the marriage of his daughter, Sravanthi, with A1. A1 was a tenant of A2 for the last ten years. The complainant paid dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards dowry and gave five tulas of gold and household articles. They lived happily for one month and thereafter A1 started harassing his daughter for the additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the instance of A2, his wife, his son, and his daughter-in-law. Sravanthi informed the same to Pw1 and Pw1, his wife and one Nagabhushanam came to the house of A1 and convinced A1. On 5-3- 2011 Sravanthi called the complainant, her father, and informed through cell phone that she is going to commit suicide due to the unbearable harassment made by A1 and his relatives A2, his wife, his son and his daughter-in-law. Immediately, he came to 12th gate of Nizamsagar and found, handbag, cell phone and chappals. The fishermen searched and found the dead body of his daughter and therefore he lodged the complaint.

4. The trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted A1 alone under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge further convicted and sentenced A1 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It was ordered that both sentences shall run concurrently Aggrieved by the same, as stated above, the appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and rendered the impugned judgment. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent contended that the trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs 1 to 5 were marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. PW1 and Pw2 are the parents of the deceased Sravanthi. Pw3 and Pw4 are the brother and sister-in-law of the deceased. This Court went through the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of conviction and sentence was based on the evidence of Pws 1 to 4. The evidence of Pw1 is that he was informed by his daughter Sravanthi that she is going to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment of A1 and relatives of A1 i.e., A2, his wife, his son, and his daughter-in- law. It is to be noted that Pw1 is not a direct witness to the said harassment of A1 against the deceased Sravanthi. Pws 2