SALUVALA RAJAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No. 144/2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, had preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment dated 16-6-2003 by virtue of which the learned Judge convicted the accused for offences under Sec. 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10OO/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Sec. 304-B IPC.

(2.) Sri Jayanthi Chandra Sekhar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant by way of Legal Aid would submit that the learned Judge erred in believing the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 who are close relatives of the deceased. The Counsel also would submit that even P.W. 5, a co-villager of parents of the deceased also is not an independent evidence, the counsel also would submit there are no independent witnesses to speak relating to payment of dowry at the time of marriage or demand of additional dowry by appellant/accused. The Counsel also would contend that P.W. 7 had not claimed any personal knowledge relating to harassment. The Counsel also would submit that the alleged panchayat to settle the disputes even if accepted, would not prove any harassment as such and just on strong suspicion the conviction was recorded by the learned Judge.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also is available and the ingredients of Section 304-B and also Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act had been clearly established by the prosecution by letting in the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 16 and marking Exs. P-1 to P-10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that Exs. D-1 and D-2, the relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are not of such a nature which would in any way shatter the episode of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out relating to M.0.1, the poison tin. Ultimately the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge commencing from paras 19 to 26 and would contend that this is a clear case of dowry death and it is needless to say that the other offences under Section 498-A IPC and also Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also had been established and hence the findings as such may have to be confirmed.