STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. B.N. RAGHUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 29-6-2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Kolar in Cri. A. No. 65 of 2003 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in reversal of the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gudibanda. The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted by the Gudibanda Police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 500 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "D.P. Act"). He pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him. After the full-fledged trial, the Trial Court convicted the respondent for all the offences for which he was charged. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the respondent filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence, allowed the appeal in part and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court insofar as it relates to conviction under Sections 420 and 500 of IPC and acquitted the respondent-accused of those two charges. Nevertheless, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 500 of IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the State is in appeal.

(2.) It is brought to the notice of this Court that against the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 1118 of 2005 before this Court and the said revision petition has been allowed by order dated 30-11-2006 and the judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act has been set aside and the respondent-accused has been acquitted of those charges. In the light of the above, the point that arise for consideration in this appeal is:

(3.) I have heard both sides and perused the judgments under appeal.