THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1132 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:

The appellant has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.08.2011 in S.C.No.634 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy.

2. Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record. 3. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

4. Briefly, the case against the appellant is that his marriage with the deceased wife was performed two years prior to the death in the year 2004. At the time of marriage, Rs.25,000/- cash, 3 tulas gold and household articles were given towards dowry. After the marriage, according to PW.1, the accused looked after the deceased for six months very well and thereafter started harassing her to bring additional dowry. The said information was given by the deceased to the PW.1/mother. PW.1 then held a panchayath and appellant was asked not to harass the deceased. However, appellant started harassing her again. The said panchayath was held twice.

5. The appellant shifted his house from Shivarampally to Shadnagar and three days thereafter, PW.1 received a phone call stating that the deceased died due to burns. The said incident happened on 29.12.2006 around 8.00 am to 9.00 am. The deceased was taken to the hospital by neighbours including PWs.3, 5 and others. The accused also accompanied his injured-wife to the hospital. While undergoing treatment in the hospital, she died on the same day. However, complaint was filed at 10.00 am on the next day i.e., on 30.12.2006. The said written complaint/Ex.P1 which was given to the SHO, Rajendranagar police was registered for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

6. The police having conducted investigation examined witnesses and filed charge sheet.

7. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge sheet under Section 304-B of IPC after being committed by the learned Magistrate. PW.1/mother, PW.4/father, PW.2/relative of PW.1, PWs.3 and 5 are independent witnesses were examined along with other witnesses.

8. Learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 supports the version of harassment by the accused prior to the death of the deceased for additional amount of dowry and accordingly, convicted him.

9. Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant would submit that there are absolutely no specific details of harassment that was stated by any of the witnesses, though it is alleged that additional demand for dowry was made. In fact, the incident happened on 29.12.2006 around 8.00 am to 09.00 am and the complaint was given with a delay of 25 hours i.e., complaint was lodged at 10.00 am on 30.12.2006 and the said delay was not explained.

10. Learned legal aid counsel for the appellant further submits that it is the case of PWs.1 and 4 that it was informed to them by the deceased in the hospital that the accused has poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire. If such was the case it would be murder and there is no explanation and as to why the parents have not informed the police regarding the incident. In the absence of any specific details regarding the demand of dowry prior to death, the question of attracting ingredients under Section 304-B of IPC, does not arise.

11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the death happened within two years of the marriage. There is prescription under Section 113B of evidence Act, which the accused did not rebut. Harassment prior to the death was stated by the witnesses. In the said circumstances of the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC are satisfied.

12. Having perused the record, PW.1 stated that for the first six months, the deceased was taken care of. However, there was denial for additional dowry by the appellant. The said information was given by the deceased to