SYED BAJI HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-A-1 preferred the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment dated 20-6-2007 rendered in Sessions Case No. 673 of 2004 by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Tenali whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge while acquitting A-2 and A-3 for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), 304-B IPC alternately 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'DP Act'), convicted the appellant-A-1 under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of DP Act and acquitted him for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and 3 of DP Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased Syed Bajimoon @ Dilshad was performed with A-1 on 4-12-1999 and after the birth of a child all the accused started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry to do business. Thereafter, A-1 started a chicken centre and the same went in loss and again the accused started harassing the deceased to bring additional dowry for purchasing an auto for eking out his livelihood. In that connection a panchayat was also conducted. Still the accused continued their harassment over the deceased, due to which on 28-6-2004 at about 10.00 p.m. committed suicide by hanging herself to an iron rod at her in-laws' house. Hence, the case.

(2.) The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC alternatively 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused wherein they denied the offence and claimed for trial. For proving the guilt of the accused, Prosecution got examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Exs. P-1 to 20 apart from M.O. 1. On defence side, D.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, Exs. D-1 to D-10 were marked and X-1 to X-4 are also marked through D.W. 1. After appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge rendered the impugned judgment acquitting A-2 and A-3 and convicting A-1 as stated above.

(3.) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.