STATE OF A.P. Vs. MAMIDI RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dt.31-01-2004 in S.C.No.567 of 2002 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, the State has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Vide aforesaid judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State that P.W.9, Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM), Miryalaguda, recorded Ex.P-10, Dying Declaration, of the deceased and the trial Court without considering the evidentiary value of the said Dying Declaration, acquitted the accused. According to him, though P.W.1, brother of the victim, set the law into motion by lodging Ex.P-1, complaint on 20-08-2002, disowned his complaint. According to him, the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 5 were win over by the accused. He would further contend that conviction can be recorded by solely relying upon the Dying Declaration of the victim, whereas in the present case, the trial Court did not record conviction and acquitted the accused on the ground that Ex.P-10 is not truthful.