John Abraham Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused no. 1, under sections 437 and 439 of cr.p.c., seeking bail in crime no. 242 of 2009 of p.s. north zone team, central crime station, dd, hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 380 r/w section 120-b of ipc.2. heard.3. the petitioner is accused no. 1 and husband of a.2. there are four deceased persons in this case and they are all residents of dubai. they came for a visit to their native place tanuku in east godavari district. a.2 is no other than the niece of deceased no. 1. a.2 was selling insurance products to public and induced all the deceased to invest rs. 80,00,000/- and d.2 had sent a sum of rs. 20 lakh to a.2. however, the said amount was misused by a.2. subsequently, when the deceased were asking about the policy and money, a.2 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased persons. on 21.08.2009 when the deceased came to hyderabad and were staying in park lane hotel, the accused met them and shifted to rak royal lodge, regimental bazar, secunderabad, on the ground that the insurance agent would come and hand over a cheque for rs. 80 lakh. the accused made d.2 to consume liquor which was mixed with ethyl alcohol and killed him by strangulation. they also killed the other deceased.4. the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the other accused have been enlarged on bail.5. the learned additional public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is an accused in s.c. no. 38 of 2009 on the file of ii addl. district & sessions judge, vizag for the offences under sections 302, 363, 206, 120-b r/w 34 ipc and also an accused in crime no. 78 of 2009 under section 509 ipc of ii town p.s., vizag and the petitioner herein (a.1) is the main culprit and the mastermind behind the brutal murders. it is also submitted that gold ornaments of deceased 1 and 2 were seized from the possession of petitioner and he was identified by the witnesses in test identification parade.6. the.....