CHOWDAM BHIKSHAPATHI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prasad Babu representing Sri Konda Reddy, Counsel representing the appellants-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellants preferred the present appeal as against thejudgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge, made in S.CNo.12 of 1994.

(3.) Sri Prasad Babu, learned counsel representing the appellants would submit even as per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 though some demand was made at a particular point of time, subsequently, the said issue was not seriously pursued and it is suggestive of the fact that there was no harassment and just on some suspicion, the complaint was given as against appellants- accused and they were charged with Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (herein after for short referred to as 'IPC' for the sake Of convenience). The learned counsel also would submit that only on the ground of suspicion and inferring that it would have been a dowry death because of some injuries alleged to have been present on the dead body and also on the strength of the presumption, the accused were convicted under Section 304-B IPC, which cannot be sustained.