THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.A.No.7 of 2008 JUDGMENT The appellant/State filed this appeal against the judgment, date 25.02.2005, passed by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.46 of 2003, whereby the respondent/accused, who was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, was acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows; The respondent/accused married the deceased Padma at Sanathnagar and during their wedlock a female baby was born. Thereafter, the accused addicted to alcohol and started harassing her to get more dowry from her parents and due to unbearable harassment, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lit fire to herself on the intervening night of 12/13/05.2002 at their residence. P.W.1-Smt Lakshmi, elder sister of the deceased, lodged a complaint to the police and a case in Crime No.71 of 2002 of Jubilee Hills Police Station was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Exs.P1 to P12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os 1 and 2 were also marked. 4. Heard. 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record, the most important witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.1,3 and 4 are the sisters and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Padma. They stated that the death of the deceased occurred solely on account of the harassment meted out by the accused. But, however, this Court is unable to appreciate the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as there are so many contradictions in their evidence with regard to the cruelty meted out by the respondent/accused by demanding additional dowry. In fact, after registration of the crime, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and at that point of time, these witnesses did not state anything with regard to the alleged harassment for dowry and for the first time, they came forward stating that there was a demand of additional dowry from the accused and on account of the same, the deceased has taken the extreme step. Further, from their evidence, it is clear that they do not know anything about the marital life of the deceased as they are not in visiting terms. As per this evidence, in my considered view, no Court can hold that the said suicide is solely on account of the harassment. No doubt, the deceased died within two years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances, but that alone is not sufficient to hold that the respondent is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Section 306 IPC. Further more, to bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offences, the prosecution must also establish the ingredients as provided under Section 107 IPC. 6. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent/accused and hence, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Date.23.11.2010. sj