THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.489 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the State questioning the judgment, dated 31.01.2007, passed in Sessions Case No.156 of 2005 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Guntur, whereby the respondents herein- accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. By the impugned judgment, A-1 alone was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that four years prior to the occurrence on 18.10.2004, the deceased was married with A-1. In the course of time, A-1 to A-3 subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her physically and mentally, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parental home. While so, on the night of 17.10.2004, A-1 to A-3 quarreled with the deceased to bring additional dowry from her parental home. Not able to bear the torture meted out by A-1 to A- 3, on the intervening night of 17/18.10.2004, the deceased hung herself with an upper cloth to the wooden beam in the rear verandah of the house and died. On a complaint made by P.W-1, a case in Crime No.46 of 2004 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the material objects were seized, autopsy was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and that the doctor who issued post-mortem certificate opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia due to hanging. As the deceased committed suicide within a span of four years from the date of marriage, being not able to bear the torture meted out by A-1 to A-3, the charge sheet was filed against them under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were marked, besides M.O-1. On behalf of defence, none was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record found A-1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him as stated supra, but, however, found A-1 to A-3 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. A-1 is the husband and A-2 and A-3 are the parents of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the father and the mother of the deceased, respectively, and P.W-10- one Annaladasu Ramaiah were examined by the prosecution in order to depose about the harassment of the deceased in the hands of the accused. However, the trial Court after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, categorically observed that as regards the harassment of the deceased by A-2 and A-3, there is no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 10 and 13. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the harassment caused by A-2 and A-3 on the deceased, which led to the deceased committing suicide. In those circumstances, when there is no consistency as regards the harassment of the deceased at the hands of A-2 and A-3, which led to the deceased committing suicide by hanging, it cannot be held that A-2 and A-3 are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. As regards A-1, it is to be noted that the trial Court doubted the credibility of Exs.P-15 to P-21, which are the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4, and 8 to 10, assigning certain reasons for the same. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State, on instructions, submitted that A-1, who is convicted by the trial Court by the impugned judgment, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC has not chosen to file any appeal against the same. This Court also looked into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and is of the considered view that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court does not need any interference by this Court as both the oral and documentary evidence on record has been scrupulously appreciated by the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 19th October 2010 dr