THAHERA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused were arrayed before the Court for the charge of dowry death and were convicted. Hence the present criminal appeals.

(2.) Crl. A No. 1276/99 is filed by A-2 as against the judgment in S.C. No. 155/96 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and Cri.A.. No. 1444/99 is preferred by A-l as against the self-same judgment and hence both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Sri Suresh Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/A-1 in Crl. A. No. 1444/99 would contend that the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC had not been satisfied. The learned Counsel also would submit that the mere fact that the deceased was not allowed to attend birthday function of PW-1's grandson would not amount to harassment or cruelty. The learned Counsel also would submit that demand for cycle or fan also had not been substantiated. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the testimony available on record is only interested testimony and also the very nature of evidence which had been adduced is not legally acceptable so as to establish the guilt or harassment for the purpose of satisfying the ingredients of the offence and hence acquittal may have to be recorded.