KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein who was accused No. 1 in SC No. 392/2005 on the file of the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge V, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26-2-2007 passed in the said case convicting him for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act' for short).

(2.) TOTALLY five accused were charge sheeted in the said Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 304B, IPC and under Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act. The appellant is accused No. 1 therein and accused Nos. 2 to 5 are his relatives. After the charge was framed against all the five accused, as it appears from the records, the accused No. 5 Madaiah absconded and therefore, the case against him came to the split up and only accused Nos. 1 to 4 were tried by the Trial Court for the said offences. On appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 19 and the documents at Exts. P1 to P31, and after considering the MO Nos. 1 to 6, the Trial Court convicted the accused No. 1 only for the said offences and acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4 of all the said offences.

(3.) SRI . P. V. Kittor, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused strongly contended that the Trial Court committed serious error in accepting the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as to the factum of demand for and acceptance of dowry by the accused and also as to the factum of ill-treatment alleged to have been given by the accused to his deceased wife Smt. Lakshmi despite PWs 1 to 4 not fully supporting the prosecution case. He further submitted that the Trial Court committed further error in recording its finding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty of such nature as defined under S. 498A in connection with his demand for dowry and the said ill-treatment was 'soon before her death' so as to attract the penal provisions of Sec. 304B, IPC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside.