Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 7-12-2015 (Correction carried out as per the chamber order dated 01.09.2015) passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2004 is appealed against by the convicted accused.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Though Mr. Somashekar Angadi, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Somashekar Angadi, has not appeared before the Court to assist us. Hence, we have appointed Sri B. Chetan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and to argue on behalf of the appellant. The papers are supplied to him well in advance.

4. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned State Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records.

5. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that the impugned judgment and order dated 7-12-2005 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C. No. 181 of 2004 was confirmed by this Court in Cri. Appeal No. 826 of 2006 disposed of on 7-1-2010. The appellant-convicted accused, questioning the said judgment dated 7-1-2010, approached the Apex Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 95 of 2015, which is later numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 329 of 2015. The Apex Court set aside the judgment and order of this Court dated 7-1-2010 and remitted the matter to this Court, with a direction to rehear the appeal afresh and to pass a considered order. Accordingly, Cri. Appeal No. 826 of 2006 is taken up for final hearing today.

6. In the meanwhile, i.e. after disposal of the matter by this Court on 7-1-2010 and before filing of appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Trial Court has destroyed the original file, inasmuch as it did not receive any intimation from the Apex Court regarding filing of special leave petition. It appears, the special leave petition was filed in the year 2015 before the Apex Court and in the meanwhile, the records were destroyed by the Trial Court after waiting for a reasonable period. Since the records were destroyed before the Trial Court, we directed the Trial Court to reconstruct the papers based on the available material. We also requested the learned State Public Prosecutor (SPP) to provide the relevant records, if any, maintained by the Office of learned SPP pertaining to the case on hand. Pursuant thereto, certain records are made available by the learned SPP including the charge-sheet presented before the Trial Court by the Investigation Officer. The paper books prepared earlier in this criminal appeal are traced and the same are also made available before us. Except the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, all other important material are found in the paper books. Since we find that the appeal may be disposed of judiciously based on the records found in the paper books, we have proceeded to hear the matter. We hasten to add here itself that two witnesses are examined on behalf of the accused as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and the defence of the accused can be gathered from the versions of D.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, the accused may not have any grievance to hear this appeal, in the absence of the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.

7. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Gowramma is the wife of the accused; marriage was performed on 8-5-2003 at the time of marriage, the accused was given Rs. 20,000/- in addition to 100 gms. of gold as dowry by the parents of the deceased; after the marriage, the accused started harassing the victim to bring more money from her parents place and accordingly, the parents of the deceased paid Rs. 20,000/- more in two instalments of Rs. 10,000/- each; after the marriage, the married couple lived in the native place of the accused i.e. Kammacheruvu Villa