JOSULA SIVASANKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants call in question the legality of convicting judgment dtd. 18/9/2009 of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Sessions Case No.458 of 2008. They and some of their relatives were prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. On conclusion of the trial A.3 to A.5 were found not guilty and they were acquitted. However, A.1 and A.2 were found guilty for the offence under Sec. 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. That A.1 and A.2 filed this Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C alleging that the evidence did not establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the sickness suffered by the deceased was proved by evidence and the cruelty or harassment with reference to dowry was never established and the death was not proved as a definite result out of the injuries allegedly that were there on the dead body of the deceased. It is for these reasons, learned counsel for appellants seek to upset the impugned judgment and acquit the accused.

(2.) Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submit that with cogent evidence all the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 304-B I.P.C. were established and the trial Court reached to appropriate conclusions and convicted the accused and there are no tenable grounds in this appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) Having considered the arguments on both sides and having perused the entire record, the point that falls for consideration is: