H N PARAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hassan in S.C.No.115/2007 dated 27/28.04.2010 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B), 498(A) of IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act thereby sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under section 304(B) of IPC, further he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to pay a fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC, further the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to pay a fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under section 3 of D.P. Act, further he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to pay a fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and further he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months, for the offence punishable under section 6 of D.P. Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) In order to substantiate the case against the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to P.W.26. Further got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.2 M.O.1 to M.O.14 were marked. Subsequently, the incriminating statement as contemplated under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein accused denied the truth of the prosecution evidence adduced so far. Thereafter, the accused did not come forward to adduce the defence evidence. But their contradictory statement was marked as Ex.D1 to D