KARINGULA ANJANEYULU GOUD Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, tried A -1 and A -2 in S.C.No.529 of 2008. While A -1 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 302, 304 -B I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the Act), A -2 was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. Both the accused were found not guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. A -1 was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, Sections 498 -A and 304 -B I.P.C. For the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the trial Court sentenced A -1 to undergo imprisonment of 5 years ,under Section 3 of the Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/ -. He was also awarded the sentence of imprisonment for 6 months, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, A -1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ -, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A I.P.C. The major punishment was, for the offence punishable under Section 304 -B I.P.C., and A -1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for the said offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A -2 was acquitted. This appeal is filed by A -1.

(2.) THE prosecution was set at motion with the submission of complaint, Ex.P -1 by PW -1. It was stated that PW -1 is the father of one Yadamma (deceased), and within one year from the marriage of Yadamma with one Mr.Balraj, the latter died and thereafter Yadamma was married to A -1, by name, Karingula Anjaneyulu Goud of Saroornagar Mandal of Hyderabad. It was alleged that A -1 used to harass and physically assault Yadamma, by demanding dowry and he used to consume liquor, frequently. Two years prior to the marriage, A -1 is said to have demanded Rs.1,50,000/ -, and that the same was paid after selling the land. The money so given is said to have spent away by A -1 and his companion, A -2. Both of them are said to have sold away the ornaments of Yadamma. PW -1 and his wife, PW -3 are said to have got constructed a house for their daughter and A -1.

(3.) CRIME No.65 of 2008 was registered, citing Sections 302 and 109 I.P.C., and the investigation was taken up. PW -9, the Inspector of Police filed the charge -sheet alleging offences punishable under the provisions referred to in the previous paragraphs.