MEETA SIVARAJU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st accused in Sessions Cases No. 181 of 2002 on the file of the HI Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kadapa. who was convicted of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of ten years, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Girija was given in marriage to A1, who was originally a resident of Dorappali village Dhone MandaI.A2 and A 3 are relatives of A1 and residents of Veldurathi. They resided at Kadapa for one year and lived as Masons. The marriage of the deceased was performed in December, 1999 by giving some dowry and articles. A1 lived happily for a period of one year and thereafter started harassing the deceased to get a sum of Rs. 50,000 from PW1, her father. He was not sending the deceased to the house of PW1, A2 and A3 also encouraged A1 and harassed the deceased. They did not allow the deceased to speak with PW1. Whenever the relatives of the deceased visited the house of A1, they expressed dissatisfaction. While so, on 6.1.2002 there was a quarrel between A-1 and the deceased and thereafter the deceased committed suicide. The information was given to the parents and a case was registered on a complaint of PW1.A2 also gave a complaint about the death of the deceased. The inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and was sent for post mortem examination. The accused was charged for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 and driving the deceased to commit the suicide. All the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC. After appearance of the accused, necessary charges were framed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the prosecution evidence with regard to the harassment and cruelty under Section 498A IPC having been not believed by the Court below, the lower Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304B IPC when there is no proof that immediately prior to the death, the deceased was subjected to harassment in order to draw a presumption and convicted the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the theory of prosecution that Rs.50,000 was demanded as additional dowry is highly improbable and unbelievable considering the evidence of PW1. It is also contended that the material witnesses on the side of the prosecution are not examined and inferences drawn by the Court below are not valid. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction of the appellant.