H MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, NO. 89/93, OPP. TO AVALAHALLI RATION DEPOT., MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, ATTACHED TO ULSOOR GATE P.S., BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is preferred by A -1, who has been convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('D.P. Act' for short) and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and the said judgment being confirmed by the lower appellate court by dismissing the appeal filed by this petitioner. The facts of the prosecution case in short is that, this petitioner got married to the complainant Shobha (PW -1) on 3.5.89 and according to the prosecution, at the time of marriage, this petitioner demanded Rs. 30.000/ cash and other gold ornaments and apart from that, the accused persons also subjected the complainant to cruel treatment. Therefore, based on the complaint lodged by PW -1, a case was registered against the petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant and also against the mother, sister and sister's husband of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498 -A r/w 34 of the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P. Act. Following the accused persons not pleading guilty, learned trial judge called upon the prosecution to lead evidence to prove its case and in all, 9 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and 7 documents were produced. Accused statement was recorded followed by DW -1 being examined on behalf of the defence.

(2.) LEARNED trial judge, after evidence appreciation, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against A -2 to A 4 and they were all acquitted in respect of the offence under the D.P.Act as well as u/s 498 -A of the IPC and only this petitioner was convicted u/s 3 of the D.P. Act. The lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the very same evidence placed by the prosecution was found not sufficient to convict, A -2 to A -4 and when the prosecution case is that, all the accused together demanded Rs. 30,000/ - cash apart from gold and other jewelleries, the trial court having disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of, A -2 to A -4. could not have convicted A -1 merely because A 1 happens to be the husband of the complainant.