The High Court has, however, found that the dying declaration Exhibit P5 which had been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate was a suspicious document and companyld number be relied upon.
20,000/ due to A2 and A3, A1 and his elder brother would pay Rs.
The marriage between the deceased and A1 was arranged with the efforts of P.W. 4 Peddi Reddy, the elder son in law of P.W. 1.
A2 and A3 were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine.
80,000/ towards dowry and also supply articles worth Rs.
On the way to the hospital, P.W. 1 enquired from the deceased as to the circumstances in which she had received the injuries and she stated that on the 19th of April, 2000, that is a day earlier, the accused had refused to give her any food and that at about 800 a.m. on the 20th of April, 2000, A2 and A3 had got hold of Crl.
The trial companyrt observing that the companyduct of A1 in particular, had been reprehensible awarded him a sentence of death under Section 302 of the IPC whereas accused Nos.
2,000/ to purchase a table fan.
The evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 1 came to the house of his elder daughter P.W. 3 to find out as to why the accused were number taking the deceased back home.
A Judicial Magistrate was also deputed to the hospital for recording her dying declaration and he did so on the 20th April, 2000, Exhibit P5 between 130 and 155 p.m. In this dying declaration, the deceased stated that A1 had set fire to her sari in culmination of the harassment that had been meted out to her over the last several days.
On the 20th of April, 2000, at about 800a.m.
Appeal No.339/2004 Hanumantha Rao, the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the dead body and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, PW 15 who had recorded the dying declaration Exhibit P5.
1,3 and 4 and asked for Rs.
1 and 2 of village Kondur, was married to A1 Keesari Madhav Reddy son of the other two accused A2 and A3, Keesari Venkata Reddy and Keesari Promila.
10,000/ each to clear of the dues.
P.W. 12 numbericed the deceased with burn injuries and immediately rushed to the house of P.W. 3 who in turn rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying there with burn injuries.
The trial companyrt relied primarily on the evidence of W. 1 and P.W. 2, the parents of the deceased, P.W. 3 the sister of the deceased, P.W. 4, the sisters husband, who had deposed that he was instrumental in arranging the marriage between A1 and the deceased on 31.05.1997, P.W. 5 the mother of P.W. 4 and P.W. 9 a witness to support the proceedings of the Panchayat held on the 6th April, 2000, and to the incident of 19th April, 2000 in which an effort had been made to settle the dispute between the deceased and her in laws and to support the demands for dowry, and the actual incident of 20th April, 2000.
40,000/ and promised to pay the balance amount after the accused and the deceased had lived happily and peacefully for about one month.
P.W. 1 promised to pay the said amount at a later stage.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and gone through the record.
On the 19th April, 2000, P.Ws.
During the companyrse of the settlement of the marriage P.W. 1 had agreed to pay Rs.
were renewed by the accused sometime in the year 1999.
P.W. 1 also spent a huge amount of money for his operation.
It appears however that the demands for dowry still companytinued and the deceased and the companyple had an on off relationship Crl.
This arrangement was apparently carried out, on which A1 and his wife stayed together at various places for sometime.
1 and 3 went to the house of P.W.2 where P.W.9 was also present and they were told that a few days earlier the deceased had been administered a beating by the accused and that she was number being provided any food by them.
The doctor refused to treat her as she was in a serious companydition and they accordingly shifted her in a jeep to MGM Hospital, Warangal.
It appears that sometime in 1998 A1 had appendicitis whereupon P.W. 1 took him to Dr. Ravinder Reddy, who hospitalised A 1.
339 of 2004 and 613 of 2006.
All the accused were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under the Sections under the other provisions under which they had been found guilty.
P.W. 1 thereupon brought the deceased to his house with the permission of A2 and A3 but numbere of the accused made any effort to take her back to the matrimonial home with the result that in the first year of marriage, the deceased lived with her husband only for a month.
They arise from the following facts 1.1 The deceased Keesari Kalavathi, the daughter of P.Ws.
The accused were, however, number happy with this arrangement and they told the deceased to bring the balance amount and for that purpose would beat and abuse her and when P.W. 1 visited his daughter she narrated the harassment meted out to her.
Appeal No.339/2004 paid Rs.
At that time, A1 and A3 were also present whereas A2 was missing.
on 20th April, 2000 and intimation was sent to the police post in the hospital itself.
Appeal No.339/2004 her and poured kerosene oil on her whereas A1 had set her fire with a match stick and that she rushed out crying in pain.
The Court also relied on the evidence of P.W. 17 Dr. Crl.
The injured, however, died at about 530p.m.
The deceased was thereafter shifted to Dr. Jogu Kistaiah Hospital in an auto rickshaw.
the deceased came running out of her matrimonial home with burn injuries raising a hue and cry and fell down in front of the house.
After his discharge from the hospital A1 took his wife with him to the matrimonial home, but the demands for the balance amount of dowry etc.
on the 21st April, 2000 and a case under Section 302 was, accordingly registered against the three accused.
Two criminal appeals were thereafter filed in the High Court one appeal by A1 and the second by A2 and A3 whereas a reference for the companyfirmation of the death sentence was also made to the High Court.
On this information P.Ws 7 and 9 called A1 and A3 before them and told them number to misbehave on which they promised that they would number harass the deceased any further.
The deceased was ultimately admitted to the MGM Hospital at about 1025a.m.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI J. The judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos.
Appeal No.339/2004 the dead body and numberreceptacle which companyld have carried kerosene oil had been found when the police officer had examined the site of the incident.
1 and 2 on the aspect of dowry and harassment has been supported by the evidence of independent witnesses including those of the Panchayat and the mediators who had tried to sort out the differences between the deceased and her husband and in laws.
On the companypletion of the investigation the accused were charged for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
6000/ but at the time of the pooja held at the house of the accused, P.W. 1 Crl.
Appeal No.339/2004 with each other over a period of time.
The same day, however, i.e. 19th of April, 2000 A1 went to the house of P.W. 9 and called P.Ws.
The trial companyrt relying on the aforesaid evidence held that the case against the accused had been proved beyond doubt and they were liable to companyviction under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
A dispute erupted at that time between A1 and his elder brother regarding dowry and it was decided that out of the Rs.
