IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2610 of 2004 DATE: 11.10.2011 Between: Godugu Balaiah and 3 others …… Appellants And The State of A.P, rep. by Public Prosecutor, For SHO, P.S. Ellanthakunta, Karimnagar District …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2610 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The appellants 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Questioning the same, A-1 to A-4 filed this appeal. A-1 and A-2 are parents-in-law and A- 3 and A-4 are brothers-in-law of the deceased/victim. The deceased and her husband were living separately from each other since 8 to 9 years prior to her death. After death of the deceased, the case was filed by the police against A- 1 to A-4 alleging offences against them under Sections 498- A, 302, 201/34 I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The lower Court framed charges accordingly against A- 1 to A-4. In the impugned judgment, the lower Court found A-1 to A-4 not guilty under Sections 498-A, 302, 201/34 I.P.C., but they were found guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alone. 2) It is alleged that since 5 years prior to her death the deceased was harassed by the accused both physically and mentally for bringing additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. On 12.12.2002 the deceased died. Husband of the deceased went to Mumbai to eak out his livelihood. When husband of the deceased was not leading conjugal life with the deceased since several years prior to the offence, the question of in-laws demanding additional dowry from the deceased appears to be improbable. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the deceased died of homicide and not of suicide. The prosecution also invoked Section 498-A I.P.C against the accused while taking case under Clause (b) of explanation thereto and not Clause (a). Ultimately after trial and assessment of prosecution evidence let in during trial the lower Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not make out a case under Section 498-A I.P.C against the accused. Having found that A-1 to A-4 are not guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C, it is surprising to note that the lower Court came to the conclusion that A-1 to A-4 are guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by way of demanding additional dowry. Finding of not guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C knocks at bottom of charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also. After finding A-1 to A-4 not guilty under Section 498-A I.P.C, finding A-1 to A- 4 guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act becomes totally inconsistent and contradictory to each other. It appears that the lower Court gave a moral conviction to A-1 to A-4 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after having found them not guilty under the main charges. Such moral conviction based on inconsistent findings, cannot stand to scrutiny by this Court. 3) In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 and acquitting them. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 11, 2011 ksh