JUDGMENT:

1. The revision petitioner/A1 is the husband who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.267 of 2005, dated 29.06.2007 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. The said conviction was confirmed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) at Sangareddy vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2007, dated 28.04.2009.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to the revision petitioner/A1/accused three years prior to her death. At the time of marriage, Rs.10,000/- cash was given as dowry along with three tulas of gold and other household articles. Son was born to them. On the day of function of the child, accused demanded for scooter or Rs.20,000/- to be paid. The father of the deceased P.W.1 promised that the amount would be paid after six months. However, accused started harassing the deceased to get Rs.20,000/-. The said demand was informed by the deceased to P.W.1, as such, P.W.1 requested the accused and also the parents-in-law not to harass the deceased. P.W.1 also informed that money would be paid after selling the land. Due to the intervention of elders including P.W.9 and others, the deceased started living with accused. A1 was also requested not to harass the deceased. On 05.07.2005, the deceased died by hanging herself. The next day on 06.07.2005, complaint was filed by P.W.1, which is Ex.P1. The police, having investigated the case, filed charge sheet against A1 and two others.

3. Learned trial Judge, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P21 were also brought on record by the prosecution. Learned trial Judge found that the allegation against A2 and A3 were vague and not sufficient to attract ingredients under Section 304-B IPC and accordingly acquitted them. However, A1 was convicted.

4. In appeal filed before the learned Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction against accused/A1.

5. Since the counsel was not appearing continuously, this Court appointed Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, retired District Judge as legal aid counsel.

6. Learned legal aid counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any harassment soon before death. He relied on the judgment of Hon’le Supreme Court in the case of Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1369, dated 19.10.2023) and argued that the evidence of parents, which is hearsay was taken into consideration. In fact, none of the independent witnesses have specifically stated about any harassment. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased was subjected to harassment soon before death her death to term the death as dowry death. In the absence of ingredients of Section 304-B IPC being satisfied, the accused has to be acquitted.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the death happened within seven years of the marriage and there is presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the death was on account of dowry harassment. Complaint was filed by P.W.1, which is Ex.P1 and also in the statement made before the Court, it was specifically alleged that Rs.20,000/- was demanded for the purpose of purchasing vehicle. Though it was promised that the amount would be arranged after selling the land, harassment continued. In the said circumstances, both the Courts below have correctly convicted the accused/A1.

8. The main allegation, which was relied on by both the Courts below is the demand for Rs.20,000/- that was made for the purpose of purchase of vehicle. No where it is mentioned by any of the witnesses that the said Rs.20,000/- was demanded in connection with marriage. If the amount was demanded for purchase of vehicle, nearly three years after the marriage, it does not fall within the definition of dowry since it is not alleged that the said demand of Rs.20,000/- was in connection with the marriage or as additional dowry. In th