STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT Vs. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O ERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - 1, Davanagere in S.C.No. 111/2006 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Netravathi was married to accused No. 1 on 30.05.2005 and after the marriage, when she was living in the house of the accused, the accused meted her with cruelty and harassment - physical and mental - thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 498A IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that on 24.07.2006, when the deceased Netravathi was in the house of the accused, the first accused quarreled with the deceased and with an intention to commit her murder, he has assaulted her on her cheek and caused her death, thereby, all the accused are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is further case of prosecution that the deceased having married to the first accused on 30.05.2005, the deceased died even before seven years from the date of her marriage and the said death being an unnatural one, the accused have committed offence under Section 304B of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC. It is also further charged against the accused that on 30.05.2005 or prior to the said date, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 with common intention, demanded dowry in the form of one acre of land and got it written from the parents of deceased Netravathi, in consideration of the marriage and thereafter, they demanded for the sale of said one acre of land in order to get the sale proceeds there from, as dowry, thereby they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) ON production of the accused before the Court, all three accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them for the aforesaid offences and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence and after appreciating the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.