STATE Vs. GOVINDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 22.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.142 of 2011 on the file of Fast Track Court-III and Additional Session Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that, the prosecution filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused was performed with the deceased Pushpa about 4 years back and at the time of marriage talks, the accused demanded Rs.2,50,000/- and the same was settled for Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amount was given along with gold jewels of 10 savaren. After the marriage, the accused and his wife resided at House No.277, 4th Cross, Domlur Extension, Bangalore and thereafter, the accused started ill-treating his wife by demanding further dowry and alleging that she did not bear any child. As such, due to the ill-treatment meted out by his husband, she committed suicide by hanging on 25.09.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. in the house of the accused. The death has occurred within seven years of the marriage and hence, Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and other offences are invoked.

(3.) The charges are framed against the accused initially for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and thereafter, additional charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are framed. The accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. Hence, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P54 and also M.O.Nos.1 to 26. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D11. The Court below after closure of the evidence, heard the arguments of prosecution and also learned counsel for accused and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.