JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Since the year 2019, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, instead of deferring hearing in the matter, considering the fact that the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC, this Court proposed to examine the entire material available on record. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State through Video Conference operating in Blue-jeans App. 3. Sole accused in S.C.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant herein. He was tried by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, for the charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC. 4. Substance of the charges is that prior to 27.2.2010, the accused harassed his wife by name Jampana Vani (herein after referred as 'deceased') for the sake of additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty, soon before her death and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC. 5. After completion of the trial, by its judgment dated 28.2.2013, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, convicted the accused for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 6. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, also convicted the accused for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 7. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, further convicted the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of six months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 8. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows: 9. The marriage of the accused was performed with the deceased on 1.3.2006 at T.T.D Kalyana Mandapam in Simhachalam. As per the demand of the accused, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid towards dowry and 8 sovereigns of gold was given to the deceased. 8. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows: 9. The marriage of the accused was performed with the deceased on 1.3.2006 at T.T.D Kalyana Mandapam in Simhachalam. As per the demand of the accused, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid towards dowry and 8 sovereigns of gold was given to the deceased. After the marriage, the deceased joined her matrimonial home at Bangalore and lived happily for one month. Thereafter, the accused along with his mother and sister started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry. Subsequently, in the month of July-2006, during Aashadamasam, the deceased was brought to her parents house and after completion of Aashadamasam, she was taken to her in-laws house. Subsequently, she gave birth to a male child. 10. While the things stood thus, on 27.2.2010 at about 11.00 am., the accused telephoned to P.W.1 (mother of the deceased) and informed that the deceased fell down in the bathroom and her condition was serious. Having received the said information, P.W.1 went to Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 went to Kothavalasa Police station and gave Ex.P1 report to police. On that, P.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station received Ex.P1 report and registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2010 for the offence under section 304-B r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Later, on 28.2.2010 at about 5.00 am., after receipt of FIR, P.W.17-Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bobbili Sub-Division, I/c. Vizianagaram Sub-Division took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he visited K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.13 and another. He got photographed the dead body through P.W.14. Later, he secured the presence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He visited the scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P4 scene observation report and also drawn Ex.P11 rough sketch in the presence of mediators. Later, on 8.3.2010 at about 13.30 hrs, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. Later, he secured the presence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He visited the scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P4 scene observation report and also drawn Ex.P11 rough sketch in the presence of mediators. Later, on 8.3.2010 at about 13.30 hrs, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. On requisition made by the police, the Assistant Professor, K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8 postmortem certificate by opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to 'Asphyxia due to ligature strangulation'. As prima-case was not made out against A2 to A4, the investigating officer deleted their names from the list of the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of IPC against the accused. 11. On appearance of the accused documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and since the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram under Section 209 Cr.P.C. and the same was numbered as S.C.No.12 of 2011. 12. On appearance of the accused, charges as stated earlier came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 13. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 4. 14. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied, however he did not choose to examine any defence witness, except marking Exs.D.1 to D.3. 15. After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 16. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 17. Perused the grounds of the appeal. It is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 cannot be relied on and the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused have not been made out. 16. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 17. Perused the grounds of the appeal. It is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 cannot be relied on and the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused have not been made out. It is also contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty, soon before her death and the conviction was based on surmises. It is also contended that P.W.1 had no capacity to pay any dowry, much less, additional dowry and there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence no reliance can be placed on their evidence. 18. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor points out that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clinchingly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and though, they were cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited by the defence and as such, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 19. Perused the record. 20. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged beyond all reasonable doubt ? 21. The learned trial Judge has framed three charges i.e., under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC against the accused. 22. Ordinarily, in a case of dowry death, the Court has to frame charges under section 304-B IPC or alternatively under section 302 IPC. But, in the present case on hand, the learned trial Judge framed two independent charges i.e., 304-B IPC and 302 IPC for the death of the deceased. Normally, it should be alternative charge. But, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under both the charges i.e., 304-B IPC and 302 IPC. 23. At para-31 of the Judgment, the learned trial Judge gave a finding, which reads as follows : 24. In respect of Section 304-B is concerned, the prosecution has successfully established that there is demand of dowry and harassment by the accused, further that the deceased died in un-natural circumstances within seven years of her marriage, with bodily injury and was shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by the husband. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter between Vemuri Venkateswara Rao Vs. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter between Vemuri Venkateswara Rao Vs. State Andhra Pradesh, (1992) CriLJ 563 held that : "Once the three circumstances are proved, the offence under section 304-B IPC is established when once there is a demand for dowry, and harassment against the deceased and the death occurred within 7 years after marriage, the other things automatically follow due to the statutory presumption contemplated under 113-B of Indian Evidence Act". 25. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 304-B IPC. 26. At para-32 of the Judgment, learned trial Judge further gave a finding, which reads as follows : The prosecution could also able to establish the intention on the part of the accused in causing the death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. 27. It is pertinent to mention here that after careful scrutiny of the evidence of doctor, it does not indicate that it is a case of murder. In fact, there is no positive evidence either from the ocular version of the prosecution or from the medical evidence to show that it is a case of murder. As a matter of fact, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under section 304-B IPC and as such, the learned Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. 28. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 302 of IPC is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. As the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused for the offences under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC is hereby confirmed. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 30. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.