The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of dowry by the accused, and the absence of cruelty by the accused in relation to dowry demand.

N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of respondents 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) for offences punishable under Section 498A, 302 of IPC and also under Section 3, 4 and 8 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused 1 was the son of accused 2 and 3. Accused 1 had married the deceased Nagarathna. P.W. 20-N. Kalegowda and P.W. 23-Lakshmamma are the parents of the deceased Nagarathna. P.Ws.21 and 22 are the paternal uncle and aunt of the deceased. P.W. 27 is the younger brother of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed on 15.11.1999.

2. It is the case of the prosecution before the marriage negotiations took place in the house of P.W. 1, accused demanded cash of Rs. 15,000/-, gold jewels weighing 150 grams and a site measuring 40 x 60 feet at Bangalore, as dowry in connection with the marriage between the first accused and deceased. P.W. 20 agreed to give a site measuring 20 x 30 feet, cash of Rs, 10,000/- and gold jewels weighing 150 grams as dowry to the accused No. 1, a part of the dowry was paid at the time of marriage negotiations and also at the time of marriage. The remaining part of the dowry (a site measuring 20 x 30 feet) was agreed to be given after the marriage.

3. After the marriage, the accused and deceased lived in the house of P.W. 20 for about 4 or 5 months. The accused was working as a Group ‘D’ employee on contract basis in University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore. P.W. 20 took a house on mortgage in Srinivasanagar and provided accommodation to accused 1 and deceased. Accused 1 and deceased lived happily for a period of six months. The deceased conceived and returned to her parental house for delivery and confinement. Accused 1 abruptly left the job and started staying with his parents (accused 2 and 3) in his native place.

4. The deceased gave birth to a female child, when the child was aged about eight months, accused No. 1 took the deceased and child to his parental house at Eligehalli. When the parents of the deceased namely, P.W. 20-N. Kalegowda, P.W. 23-Lakshmamma had gone to the house of accused to bring their daughter for a religious ceremony, they refused to send the deceased and child stating that P.Ws.20 and 23 have not paid the remaining amount of dowry and, therefore, they would not send the deceased, There was intervention of some well wishers and the accused agreed to send the deceased to her parental house after a week.

5. On 14.2.2002, accused No. 1 took the deceased and his child to Magadi to see a movie. When the accused No. 1 and deceased were returning on a footpath at Huluvenahalli bus stop on the road leading to Eligehalli, accused 1 committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her with a chopper. Accused 1 took the jewels of the deceased and left that place even without caring for the child. The matter was informed to police. The parents of deceased lodged first information and set the law into motion.

After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused No. 1 for offences punishable under Section 302, 498A IPC and under Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and for offences Under Section 498A and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry prohibition Act against accused Nos. 2 and 3.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 35 were examined, documents as per Ex. P1 to P39 were marked and the material objects were marked as M.Os.l. to 21. The learned trial Judge framed the following points for determination:

(1) Whether the prosecution proves that accused 1 to 3 demanded and accepted dowry in connection with the marriage of accused No. 1 and deceased Nagarathna?

(2) Whether the prosecution proves that accused 1 to 3 subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassed her to meet their demand for additional dowry and a site?

(3) Whether the prosecution proves that accused No. 1 had committed murder of his wife Nagarathna?

6. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for the part