MOHAMMAD DOWLATH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 20-9-1999, (or 20-12-99) in S. C. No. 86/1996, on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found A-l and A-2 guilty and sentenced A-1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304/304-B. IPC, A-l and A-2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Sections 498-A and 201, I.P.C. wlth a fine of Rs. 500.00 each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 498A, I.P.C. with a direction to ruri thle substantive sen tences concurrently.

(2.) The Prosecution case in brief is that the 2nd daughter of P.W. 2, Syada Tasleena Shanaz, who was the deceased in this case, was given in marriage to A-l. A-2 is the mother of A-l. At the time of the marriage, the accused demanded Rs. 50,0007- cash and other articles, P.W. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and gave some household articles. Eight days after the marriage, A-l and A-2 started harassing the deceased on the pretext that the (deceased did not know domestic work. They beat her and abused her. One month thereafter,, the deceased came to her mother's house with marks of violence on her face and body. She told her mother that she was being daily beaten by A-1 and A-2 and demanding her to get Rs. 50,000.00 and if she failed to bring the amount, they would kill her. On 24-1 -1995 A-1 came to the house of P.W. 2 and requested her to send the deceased to his house. P.W. 2 refused to send the deceased and asked A-l to bring his elders. He again came on the next day and persuaded P.W. 2 to send the deceased with him. He even threatened that if the deceased was not sent to his house, he would contract second marriage. Though P.W. 2 was not willing to send the deceased, the deceased expressed her willingness to go along with her husband. Accordingly the deceased went with her husband to her matrimonial house on 26-1- 1995. On 27-1-1995, the father pf A-1 along with a Constable came to the. house of P'.W. 2 and informed her that the deceased died. P.W; 1 lodged Ex. P-l with the police. The police conducted investigation. The dead body was sent to post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was flled. Charges under Sections 498-A 302 and 201,I.P.C. were framed. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 20 documents, besides M.Os. 1 to 6. On appreciation of the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, aggrieved by which the accused preferred this appeal.

(3.) P.W. 13 is an inquest mediator when the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. As seen from Ex. P-7- inquest report, the cause of death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased; P.W. 14 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found as many as 26 injuries including contusions and abrasions. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure over the neck. He issued Ex. P-8 post-mortem certificate. The accused did not cross-examine this witness at all. Therefore, his evidence remained unchallenged. From the evidence on. record, it has been established beyond ,all reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.