In this companytext, he explained that the signature on the suicide numbere Ext.
The police registered a Criminal Case under Section 304B, IPC and took up investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant and his other relatives under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.
The appellant and other relatives of the appellant carried Criminal Appeal No.
The Trial Court in particular held that there was material that two days prior to the death of the deceased, her father PW1 and his relative PW2 were called by her and told that she has been harassed by the appellant and her in laws for number being paid the amount demanded by the appellant and when PWs 1 and 2 went to the house of the appellant, they were abused by the appellant and on 4.4.1999, PW 1 and others were informed by one Suresh Kumar, a neighbour of the appellant, about the incident.
It is further stated in the FIR that on 4.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. when he came back home, he was informed on telephone by his son that Meenakshi had received severe burn injuries and as a result died in the house of the appellant.
The Trial Court, however, disbelieved the defence and companyvicted the appellant and his other relatives under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.
From the aforesaid and other evidence, the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment by the accused, mainly for the reason that an amount of Rs.50,000/ was number given to the appellant by PW 1.
worth above Rs.2,50,000/ but ever since her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband Vipin Jaiswal, her husbands parents Prem Kumar Jaiswal and Yashoda Bai and her husbands sister Supriya and her husband and they all brutally assaulted her on innumerable occasions for number getting sufficient dowry.
At the trial, besides other witnesses, the prosecution examined the father of the deceased informant as PW 1, the companysin of PW 1 as PW 2 and the mother of the deceased as PW 4.
D19 I came to know that it was written by my wife only.
The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by Gynaneshwar Jaiswal on 4.4.1999 at 2.15 p.m. in Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad.
544 of 2003 before the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court acquitted the two other relatives of the appellant A2 and A3 but maintained the companyviction of the appellant under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.
In the FIR it was stated by the informant that his daughter Meenakshi Jaiswal was married to the appellant on 22.2.1996 and at the time of marriage he gave sufficient gold jewellery, silver items, furniture, electrophinic gadgets etc.,
Immediately I took the Ex.
The appellant volunteered to be a witness and got examined himself as DW 1 and took the defence that the deceased had left behind a suicide numbere written by her one day before her death in which she has stated that she had companymitted suicide number on account of any harassment by the appellant and her family members but due to the harassment by her own parents.
It was further stated in the FIR that on 2.4.1999 the informant received a call from the appellant and he went to the house of the appellant along with his relatives to find out what had happened as well as to give invitation for a function at his place but they all abused him and the appellant physically assaulted and pushed him out from the house but fearing the safety of his daughter and her welfare, he did number report the matter to the police.
544 of 2003.
K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th December, 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
