THIPPARAPU RAJAMALLAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.160 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17 and D.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8, Exs.D1 and D2 and MO1 and ultimately came to conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was also further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Heard both the counsel.

(3.) Sri. S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing the appellant/accused, by way of legal aid, made following submissions. Learned counsel would contend that the contents of Ex.D2 are clear and categorical and absolutely there is no whisper about the harassment relating to dowry. In the light of Ex.D2 and the evidence of D.W.1, the accused himself, who had entered into the witness box, there is no question of any dowry harassment as such and consequently, conviction and sentence imposed under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained. Learned counsel also would contend that P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 are close relatives of the deceased and except their evidence on the demand for dowry by the accused, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned Counsel also pointed out that P.W.3 had not spoken anything relating to the demand of additional dowry. Absolutely there is no independent evidence, in this regard. Learned counsel also would submit that, may be in the light of the contents of Ex.D2 also there might have been some harassment, but definitely the charges under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be said to have been established on the strength of this evidence available on record. Learned counsel also pointed out certain infirmities and the exaggerated versions spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 relating to injuries and absence of injuries on the deceased as reflected from the medical evidence.