DAMERA SAMPATH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Godishala Rajitha, the daughter of Godishala Aruna (P.W.1) and Godishala Kumaraswamy (P.W.2) of Ippagudem, Warangal District, was married to Damera Sampath -A.1, the son of Damera Rajamma -A.2 and Damera Mallaiah -A.3 of Chilpur Village. A.4 and A.5 are brothers and A.6 is the married sister of A.1. Rajitha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died, by consuming pesticide on 18.10.2011. P.W.1 submitted a complaint on 19.10.2011 at 11.00 a.m before the Station House Officer, Ghanpur, stating inter alia that the marriage of the deceased and A.1 took place six years prior to the date of complaint, at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ - and other articles were given and thereafter, A.1 started demanding Rs.1,00,000/ - and threatened the deceased with dire consequences if the amount is not brought. Panchayats were said to have been held in this behalf. A.1 is also said to have harassed the deceased stating that she was not beautiful, she gave birth to female children and that he intends to marry another woman. On 18.10.2011, A.5 is said to have informed P.W.2 on phone that the deceased consumed pesticide near a well in the agricultural field and that she has been admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital at Warangal, for treatment. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have gone to the hospital at 6.00 p.m and they found their daughter in the mortuary, as dead. P.W.1 alleged that all the accused are responsible for the death of her daughter.

(2.) CRIME No.227 of 2011 was registered by the police against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 304 -B I.P.C. The steps, such as, preparation of scene of offence panchanama, causing of inquest and post mortem of the dead body were taken as required under law. Since the offence punishable under Section 304 -B I.P.C was alleged, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kazipet.

(3.) THROUGH its judgment dated 22.01.2013, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.6 of the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Act. However, it was held that they are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B I.P.C and Section 4 of the Act. For the offence punishable under Section 304 -B I.P.C, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. In relation to the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/ - each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, was imposed. All the punishments were directed to run concurrently. This appeal is preferred by A.1 to A.6. Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse inasmuch as the conviction was ordered and sentence was imposed though there is no evidence to prove the offences alleged against the accused. He submits that the demand of dowry by the accused was not at all proved and on account of the mere fact that the death of the deceased took place within seven years of the marriage, the entire family was sent to prison.