P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in S. C. No. 144/2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, karimnagar, had preferred this Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment dated 16-6-2003 by virtue of which the learned Judge convicted the accused for offences under Sec. 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10oo/-, in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for 3 months for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Sec. 304-B ipc. ( 2 ) SRI Jayanthi Chandra Sekhar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant by way of Legal Aid would submit that the learned Judge erred in believing the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 4 and P. W. 6 who are close relatives of the deceased. The Counsel also would submit that even P. W. 5, a co-villager of parents of the deceased also is not an independent evidence, the counsel also would submit there are no independent witnesses to speak relating to payment of dowry at the time of marriage or demand of additional dowry by appellant/accused. The counsel also would contend that P. W. 7 had not claimed any personal knowledge relating to harassment. The Counsel also would submit that the alleged panchayat to settle the disputes even if accepted, would not prove any harassment as such and just on strong suspicion the conviction was recorded by the learned Judge. ( 3 ) PER contra, the learned Additional Public prosecutor had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 also is available and the ingredients of Section 304-B and also Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act had been clearly established by the prosecution by letting in the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 16 and marking Exs. P-1 to P-10. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that Exs. P-1 to P-10. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that Exs. D-1 and D-2, the relevant portions of Section 161 Cr. P. C. statements of P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 are not of such a nature which would in any way shatter the episode of the prosecution. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also pointed out relating to m. 0. 1, the poison tin. Ultimately the learned additional Public Prosecutor had taken this court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge commencing from paras 19 to 26 and would contend that this is a clear case of dowry death and it is needless to say that the other offences under Section 498-A IPC and also Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also had been established and hence the findings as such may have to be confirmed. ( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 5 ) THE sole accused in S. C. No. 144/2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, karimnagar is the appellant. The appellant/ accused was charged with the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that about ten months prior to 27-9-1999 the deceased rama Devi was married to the accused and at the time of marriage, P. W. 1 gave is. 20. 000/- as dowry besides other household articles. Few months thereafter the accused and deceased shifted to Sirsed village of Jammikunta Mandal where the brother-in-law of the deceased was residing. The accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally with a demand of additional dowry. The complainant/p. W. 1 along with Ramidi Narasaiah/p. W. 5 and ramidi Nagaiah/p. W. 6 went to Sirsed village and convinced the accused and requested him not to harass the deceased. Later the couple migrated to Adavi Srirampur village where the accused again started harassing and subjecting the deceased to cruelty with a demand for additional dowry. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused used to allege illegal intrigue with others and l. Ws. 11 and 12 warned the accused on the information of the same. Because of the harassment the deceased decided to leave the house of the accused to her parents house but the accused beat her severely and snatched away the bus fair amount from her. 11 and 12 warned the accused on the information of the same. Because of the harassment the deceased decided to leave the house of the accused to her parents house but the accused beat her severely and snatched away the bus fair amount from her. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 26-9-1999 at 7. 30 a. m. the deceased consumed poison and died because of the harassment meted out to her and based on a complaint the crime was registered in cr. No. 53/99 for the offence punishable under section 304-B and 498-A I PC and after due investigation charge-sheet was laid for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 306 ipc and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition act. ( 6 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mandapet had taken the charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and committed the same to the Court of Session which made over the case to II Additional sessions Judge, Karimnagar and the learned judge recorded the evidence of P. W. 1 to p. W. 16 and also marked Exs. P-1 to p-10 and M. O. 1 and on behalf of defence, exs. D-1 and D-2, the contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 also had been marked and the learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence after recording findings in detail arrived at a conclusion that the accused is guilty of offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence the Criminal Appeal. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased who lodged the complaint and narrated all the details. P. W. 2 is the elder brother of p. W. 1 who had corroborated the evidence of p. W. 1. P. W. 3 is the sister of the deceased who had supported the version of P. W. 1 and p. W. 2. P. W. 4 is the grandfather of the deceased who had deposed about the payment of dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent demand of additional dowry by the accused. P. W. 5 is a resident of the village of P. W. 1 who also deposed relating to the said facts. P. W. 4 is the grandfather of the deceased who had deposed about the payment of dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent demand of additional dowry by the accused. P. W. 5 is a resident of the village of P. W. 1 who also deposed relating to the said facts. P. W. 6 is the maternal uncle of the deceased who also deposed about celebration of marriage, payment of dowry, demand of additional dowry and the other aspects. P. W. 7 is the brother-in-law of the accused who had supported the version of the prosecution relating to the harassment by the accused by demanding additional dowry and cruelty. P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 are residents of Adavi Srirampur and are neighbours of P. W. 7 and these witnesses also supported the version of the prosecution. P. W. 10 is the photographer, P. W. 11 is the pancha at the scene of offence, P. W. 12 is the witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 13 is the S. I. of Police who had conducted investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses, apprehended the accused, visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. P. W. 14 is the Civil assistant Surgeon who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 15 is the Mandal Revenue Off icer who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P. W. 16 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, godavarikhani at the relevant point of time who had effected the arrest of the accused and sent visceral parts of the deceased to forensic Science Laboratory and examined the witnesses, but he did not re-record their statements as they were recorded by p. W. 13. ( 8 ) THE defence is one of total denial. ( 9 ) P. W. 1, the father of the deceased deposed that the deceased is his 5th daughter and she was married to the accused ten months prior to her death and he paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage besides other articles. They lived happily for four months and later the accused started harassing the deceased for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as additional dowry. 20,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage besides other articles. They lived happily for four months and later the accused started harassing the deceased for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as additional dowry. This witness also deposed about the restrictions imposed on the movements of the deceased by the accused and also unreasonable conditions and the accused also used to attribute unchastity. P. W. 1 also deposed that the accused got married twice before this marriage and the first marriage ended in divorce and the second wife died by consuming poison. This witness also deposed in detail about shifting their residence to adavi Srirampur where his brother-in-law was residing and during the stay at Sirsed the accused used to harass the deceased for additional dowry. P. W. 1, his brother-in-law and his maternal uncle went and tried to mediate the disputes between the accused and the deceased and the accused promised to lookafter the deceased properly. Even during the stay at Adavi Srirampur the accused had not stopped subjecting the deceased to harassment and cruelty. Then the deceased came to his house along with her sister-in-law and her sister-in-law also stated that the accused was subjecting the deceased to cruelty. They had taken the deceased to the house of the accused and they left the deceased in the house of the accused. After ten days he went to the house of the deceased and called elders of the village by name Dharmaiah, Mallamma and muthilingam and they tried to compromise the matter. The accused promised to lookafter the deceased properly. P. W. 1 further deposed that the deceased after 15 days came to bus stand in order to come to their house but the accused came and took her away forcibly and they came to know that the accused beat the deceased during that night and not able to bear the harassment the deceased consumed poison and died. He further deposed that the brother-in-law of the accused sent word to them through one of the residents of the village and they went and saw the deceased and he gave complaint to police, Mutharam and Ex. P-1 is the said complaint. He further deposed that the brother-in-law of the accused sent word to them through one of the residents of the village and they went and saw the deceased and he gave complaint to police, Mutharam and Ex. P-1 is the said complaint. This witness was cross-examined at length and he also deposed that all the elders who were present at the panchayat are known to him but they are the residents of the village of the accused and they are known to the accused. Certain suggestions put to P. W. 1 also had been specifically denied. ( 10 ) EX. P-1 reads as hereunder:"i, Ganta Odelu s/o. Veeraiah, age; 65 years, caste: Munnurkapu, r/o. Avalaramaiahpall village, I am to state that my fifth daughter Ganta ramadevi d/o. Odelu, age : 22 years, marriage performed with Saluvala rajaiah s/o. Mallaiah, age: 30 years, munnurukapu r/o Keshavapuram of mulugu, District Warangal about 10 months back, during the marriage paid rs. 20,000/- and other household utensils given to him, after the marriage my daughter and son-in-law lived happily for about 3 months and went to advi-Srirampur where my son-in-law brother-in-law is residing for livelihood prior to that resided at Srisaid village, there his son-in-law beaten by his son-in-law, for extracting additional dowry, then myself, Ramidi Narsaiah, Ramidi nagaiah all of them went to Srisaid village and warned him. Later my son-in-law went to Advi-Srirampur, there also he used to harassing my daughter and beating my daughter and also attributing illegal contacts with others and used to illtreating her, on seeing his harassment the villagers of Advi- srirampur, Barla Muthilingam, s/o. Veeramallu and Gasikanti dharmaiah s/o. Kistaiah, both of them warned him, but also my son-in-law did not change his attitude and continued the same harassment, due to which my daughter asked him that she was go to her parents house, then my son-in-law dragged her inside the house and beat her later on 26-9-99 at 7. 30 a. m. due to constant harassment of her husband she vexed with her life and have consumed pesticide poison kept in the house and committed suicide. Finally I requested to take necessary action". ( 11 ) P. W. 2, the brother of P. W. 1 had corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars relating to the payment of dowry, demand of additional dowry and the harassment and the other details. Finally I requested to take necessary action". ( 11 ) P. W. 2, the brother of P. W. 1 had corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars relating to the payment of dowry, demand of additional dowry and the harassment and the other details. It is pertinent to note that P. W. 1 married for the first time and got divorced. Due to harassment his second wife died by consuming poison. This is yet another unfortunate incident. This conduct of the appellant/accused as deposed by P. W. 1, which is not in serious controversy also may have to be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence on record. P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 also had well corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 and p. W. 2. Apart from the evidence of P. W. 1, the other witnesses also deposed that the accused not only used to harass the deceased for the demand of additional dowry, but he used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and P. W. 4, the grandfather of the accused specifically deposed about the holding of panchayat wherein the accused assured that he would lookafter the deceased properly. P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 deposed about the holding of the panchayat and advising the accused to look after the deceased properly and not to harass the deceased. Much comment was made on the evidence of these witnesses on the ground that they had not deposed about the details of harassment or other particulars, but the fact remains that there was mediation in relation to the problems in between the appellant/accused and the deceased. P. W. 10 is the photographer who deposed about the photographs marked as Ex. P-1. P. W. 11 deposed about Ex. P-3 scene of offence panchanama and also M. O. 1. P. W. 12 deposed about Ex. P-4, inquest panchanama. P. W. 13 is the S. I. of Police who had deposed about the registration of cr. No. 53/99 and the other details of investigation. P. W. 14 is the Civil Assistant surgeon, Sircilla who had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-8 is the post mortem certificate and Ex. P-9 is the final opinion. No. 53/99 and the other details of investigation. P. W. 14 is the Civil Assistant surgeon, Sircilla who had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-8 is the post mortem certificate and Ex. P-9 is the final opinion. P. W. 15 is the M. R. O. who deposed about the conducting of inquest and examination of the relations of the deceased at the time of inquest orally. Ex. P-7 is the inquest panchanama. P. W. 16 is the Deputy Director of A. A. C. of Ministry of Petroleum of government of India and he worked as s. D. P. O. Godavarikhani from 7-2-1999 to 31-10-1999. He deposed that he effected the arrest of the accused and vicera was sent to forensic Science Laboratory on 11 -10-1999, verified the investigation done by P. W. 13 and also deposed about laying of the charge-sheet. ( 12 ) ON the strength of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge recorded reasons in detail, commencing from paras 19 upon 15 and in view of the clear evidence available on record the learned judge arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the accused under Section 304-B, 498-AIPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act had been established taking into consideration the nature of the evidence available on record. There is specific evidence available on record that the harassment was riot only in relation to the demand of additional dowry but also on the ground of suspicion relating to fidelity of the deceased. The evidence of the grandfather of the appellant/ accused i. e. , P. W. 4 and the other witnesses, the elders, definitely appear to be very clear and specific. Apart from the relative witnesses, the independent witnesses also had supported the version of the prosecution and hence this Court is of the considered opinion that on appreciation of the over all facts and circumstances and the whole evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault in any way and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 13 ) THERE is no merit in the Criminal appeal and accordingly the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.