DILIP AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2008 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Sessions Case No. 143/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the accused have filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2005 accused No. 3 married the deceased Saroja, the daughter of PW.2. At the time of marriage negotiation, these accused demanded Rs. 60,000/ - in cash, two tolas of gold but it was settled at Rs. 35,000/ -in cash and two tolas of gold. After marriage when the deceased came to her husband's house she led her marital life peacefully for some time. Thereafter, accused No. 3 namely her husband and accused Nos. 1 and 2 namely the father and mother of accused No. 3 demanded additional dowry of Rs. 25,000/ - and five tolas of gold. They ill -treated her and subjected her to cruelty. She was always being harassed to bring an additional dowry. That she was subjected to cruelty for the same. Unable to bear the cruelty, she jumped into a well on 14.07.2005 and died. The father the deceased -PW.2 lodged a complaint against the accused and a charge sheet was filed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) SRI . Mahantesh Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court is erroneous and requires to be set aside. The appellants are innocent of the offences alleged against them. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. That such inconsistencies have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. He contends that the case made out by the complainant is far different from the subsequent improvements that he has made in his evidence. The evidence on record is not sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The plea for additional dowry is not substantiated by the evidence on record.