KOSIPALLI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-2-1996 passed by the leaned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC No. 147 of 1995, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (for brevity the Code), convicted thereof and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, which is the minimum mandatory imprisonment for the said offence, but acquitted the accused 2 to 4 of the said charge.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that Manjula - the deceased was the wife of A1, A2 is the younger brother of A1 and A3 is the mother of appellant, A4 is the daughter of A3. On 9-11-1991 on receipt of information from Gandhi Hospital, LW17 Shiv Kumar Yadav, went to hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, who was admitted therein, according to which the appellant married the deceased and at that time, cash of Rs.10,000/- and six half tulas of gold and utensils, and cash of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of motor cycle were given; that one month after the marriage the appellant and his mother started ill-treating the deceased for additional dowry in the midst of her family members and warned of the dire consequences. The appellant further suspected her character and also snatched away pusthela tadu. While so, on 18-11-1991, the appellant and his younger brother abused her in filthy language and, therefore, on that night at about 2-00 a.m., she drenched herself with kerosene and set her afire unable to bear the harassment, in her parents house. The crime was registered as 349 of 1991 under Section 498-A of the Code and Sections 3 and 4 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, PW7, V Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on requisition from the Investigating Officer, inquest was conducted over the dead body by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the corpse was subjected to post-mortem and after completion of investigation, the appellant and others were charge-sheeted.

(3.) In order to bring home guilty of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 3. The defence of the accused was a total denial. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.