THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.198 OF 2009 ORDER This revision is filed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.641 of 2006 on the file of the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad. The complainant is the revision petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased-Chandrakala. She said to have been given in marriage to Accused No.1 in the month of November-2004 and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was said to be paid as dowry and she lived for one month with the accused persons where she is said to have been put to harassment and she came back to her parents’ house. According to her, the accused were demanded PW.1 to bring a further sum of Rs.1 lakh. She said to have committed suicide on 16.07.2006 in her mother’s house. On the basis of the compliant given by the revision petitioner, a case in Cr.No.113 of 2006 under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was initially registered and during the course of investigation the dying declarations of the deceased was said to have been recorded by the Magistrate and also Sub-Inspector of police and on 01.08.2006 she said to have succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, the inquest was held after altering the section of law and a charge sheet has been filed against all the accused for the offence under Sections.498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. After the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused pleaded not guilty for the charges and on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to Pw.19 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and Mos.1 to 3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present revision is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:- Evidently, in order to attract the offence under Section 304-B IPC, it should be shown that the deceased was subjected to harassment or ill-treatment towards dowry within seven(7) years from the date of marriage and such harassment or ill-treatment shall be shortly prior to the death or unnatural death of the victim. Evidently, in this case, the marriage was performed in November-2004 and she stayed only for one month in her in-laws’ house and came back to her parents house in December-2004 and continued to stay there till the alleged incident on 16.07.2006. Therefore, from the above facts, it is quite clear that prior to the death or proximate to the date of death neither any demand nor harassment being possible as the deceased was staying in her parents. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused to draw the presumption of an offence under Section 304-B IPC. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the dying declarations were given by the victim showing the complicity of the accused and they have been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge. It is to be noted that the dying declarations were given at the time when she was in hospital and in fact she has come out from the marital home finding fault with the conduct of the accused persons. Therefore, such dying declarations cannot be given much credence when the circumstances do not support the complaint given by the revision petitioner. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge clearly goes to show that he has rightly appreciated the evidence and improbabilities in the prosecution case and also found that the dying declarations cannot be made the sole basis for conviction as the cause of death and the complaint of harassment does not appear to be proximate to each other. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 13-12-2011 TSNR