DAIDA SAIDULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment, dated 03.12.2008, rendered in S.C.No.616 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder, the appellant/accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. and further, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and further, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. By the impugned judgment, accused Nos.2 to 4 were found not guilty of the charges levelled against them and accordingly, they were acquitted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 would contend that PW.1, mother of the deceased Venkatamma, is an unreliable witness; that she did not support the case of the prosecution in the cross-examination; that there are no other witnesses, directly or indirectly, supporting the case of the prosecution; that the appellant/accused No.1 did not made any demand of dowry, as contended by the prosecution; that the deceased Venkatamma died due to stomach pain and other reasons; that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; that the trial Court had erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused No.1 for the said offences and ultimately, prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused No.1 by the trial Court.