Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - (1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant - de facto complainant seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 01.03.2016 delivered in S.C.No. 67 of 2010 BY III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and punish respondent Nos.1 to 4 - accused for the offences charged against them.
(2.) This appeal is filed on certain following grounds: The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had diligently and very meticulously proved the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. The deceased died in the house of the accused and the prosecution succeeded in leading the evidence to show that shortly before the commission of the crime, they were seen together, hence, the burden was on the accused to explain regarding the circumstances which led to the unnatural death of the deceased.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PWs. 2 to 5 on the ground that there are omissions, contradictions and improvements in the evidence of these witnesses. However, PW2 - De facto complainant, who is the father of the deceased, categorically stated about the harassment meted out to the deceased by the hands of accused with regard to demand of additional dowry. He further deposed that during the marriage negotiations, he had agreed to give one Motorcycle and 10 tulas of gold as per the demand of the accused. However, after the marriage was fixed, the accused demanded 16 tulas of gold and one Chetak Scooter and also utensils worth Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant arranged the same. Later, the accused did not allow the deceased to join in Teacher Training Course and continue her studies. PW2 further deposed that when the deceased came to his house on the eve of Deepavali festival, he gave her one tula of gold and sent her to her in-laws' house, but for about 18 months, the deceased was not allowed to come to her parents' house. When PW2 questioned about it, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs.;