The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased; accused No.2 is the brother-in-law, accused No.3 is the father-in-law and accused No.4 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Accused No.5 is the maternal uncle of accused No.1 and accused No.6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. A complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased on 08th July 2010 at about 12.45 p.m. He has stated that the deceased Smt.Shobha was his second daughter. She was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 08th May 2008. Cash and gold was given at the time of marriage. They have a female child. Thereafter, the husband of the parents started to illtreat her. They demanded that she bring more dowry and gold. They used to assault her physically and mentally. The same was being narrated by her to her parents. That on 08th July 2010 at about 07.00 p.m., one Shivappa Chungina, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant, telephoned him and told him about the death of his daughter Smt.Shobha at about 10.00 p.m. on the previous night. Hence, the complainant, his wife and other family members went to the village. They saw the dead body of their daughter. The body was burnt from stomach to face. She was strangled and murdered after pouring kerosene and lit her on fire. Based on this complaint, a case in Crime No.40 of 2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 498A, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Investigation was taken up. The charge-sheet was filed against six accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 498A, 304B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to trial. The accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and marked fourteen exhibits along with three material objects. Three documents were marked on behalf of the defence. The accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 498A, 304B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2. Sri. T.M. Nadaf, learned counsel for the complainant, contends that the judgment of the trial court is erroneous. That, it has failed to comply with the mandatory previsions of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it being a faulty judgment, the same requires to be reversed.

3. On the other hand, Sri. Santosh B.Malagoudar, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the finding is recorded by the trial court on all the charges and the issues framed. There is only a technical error in not mentioning the relevant provision of law. Therefore, when the accused have been acquitted of the other offences, they are deemed to have been acquitted of the offences for which there is no finding. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsels and examined records.

5. We have considered the impugned judgment at length. We are primarily concerned with whether the judgment of the trial court is in conformity with the provisions of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not on the merits of the case.

6. The five charges that were leveled against the accused read as under:

(i) “That you accused No.1 to 6 on 7-7-2010 at about 10.00 p.m. and also prior to that being members of unlawful assembly have given dowry harassment to the daughter of complainant Shoba and caused her death by setting fire by her self and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Sec.142 of I.P.C. and within cognizance of this Court.

(ii) That you on 8-05-2008 the marriage of you accused No.1 was performed with Shoba who is the daughter of the complainant and at that time you accused being relative to each other have demanded dowry of Rs.40,000/- and two thola gold out of which the complainant has paid Rs.30,000/- and one tho