THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No. 25 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 6.1.2005 on the file of court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2003 whereby the said court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 5.8.2003 passed against the accused by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Peddapally in S.C.No.150 of 1999 . 2. The trial court found the accused guilty of offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and seven years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - on both counts, in default, simple imprisonment for three months each on both counts; that the said sentence of imprisonment on both counts shall run concurrently and that set off was ordered for the remand period, if any. 3. The facts in brief are that the deceased was married to the accused on 8-5-1998; that Rs.1,30,000/- was agreed to be paid towards dowry, out of which Rs.90,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and remaining amount was agreed to be paid six months thereafter. They lived happily together for some time. The accused was working as A.R. Constable at Peddapalli. Hence, he was residing with his in-laws; that the accused was harassing the deceased for additional dowry and being unable to bear with such harassment, she asked her father on 16.11.1998 whether he would pay the dowry amount after her death and that her father promised to pay the additional dowry after harvest. However, being unable to bear with the constant harassment meted out to her by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself ablaze during the night of the same day i.e. 16.11.1998. She died at Government Hospital while undergoing treatment on 17.11.1998 at 1.30 a.m. 4. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.6 were marked in support of the prosecution case, whereas Ex.D.1, a portion of statement of PW.3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked on behalf of the defence. 5. That the accused was working as Gunman to D.S.P. Peddapalli at the time of the incident. On the night of the incident, both the accused and deceased refused to have dinner, however, later they had dinner at the persuasion of PW.2-mother of the deceased; that after dinner they entered the bedroom to retire for the night; that during the night, according to PW.2, the deceased was weeping; that she found her in a sad mood and she appeared depressed and that she also broke a mirror out of frustration. It is in the evidence of PW.3 that during the night, on hearing her crises, they woke up and broke open the doors of the bedroom; that they did not find the accused in the room. PW.1 is father, PW.2 is mother and PW.3 is brother of the deceased, they supported the case of the prosecution; that the accused was harassing the deceased for additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, it can safely be said that the provisions of Section 498-A IPC are attracted. Further, that the constant harassment was meted out to the deceased soon before her death. Therefore, the provisions of Section 304-B IPC are attracted and the same in turn attract the provisions of Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act. Of course, the first appellate court came to the same conclusion since the accused was unable to rebut the case of the prosecution in any manner. So far as Ex.D.1 marked on behalf of the defence is concerned, it is a minor discrepancy as to the amount of dowry agreed to be paid, paid at the time of marriage and the balance to be paid, is not material aspect to affect the substratum of the prosecution case as PW.3 along with his parents PWs 1 and 2 who are rustic and illiterate persons, corroborated each other. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner canvassed that the accused did not harass the deceased for any additional dowry nor did he commit any acts of cruelty towards the deceased. It is further canvassed that both the courts below should have seen that PWs 1 to 3 are related and interested witnesses. Seen from any angle, the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Rest of the witnesses are circumstantial witnesses and official witnesses. Moreover, from the evidence of PW.2, mother of the deceased, who spoke as to mental condition of the deceased during the night of the incident, it is clear that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the accused. Without grave abetement by the accused, the deceased might not have taken the extreme step. Therefore, the defence finding fault with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 since they are from the same family, cannot be accepted. When the evidence of such witnesses is cogent trustworthy and inspires confidence of the court, their evidence is bound to be accepted that is what has been done in this case by both the courts below. 7. In the above circumstances, this court is not impressed by the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as stated hereabove. 8. In the result, the Criminal R.C. fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 11-12-2009 Stp