The deceased and Accused No.1 were married on 01.11.2007 at S.L.R. Kalyana Mantappa, Nagamangala. Accused No.2 is the sister and Accused No.5 is the brother of Accused No.1. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of Accused No.1. At the time of marriage, the accused demanded and received dowry in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, a gold chain, a gold finger ring and gold ornaments weighing about 120 grams. Thereafter, for a few years the husband and wife lived happily. Subsequently, the accused persons started ill-treating the deceased. They started demanding more dowry. As a consequence, a complaint was lodged by the deceased before the Police and at the intervention of the Police, the dispute was settled and accused no.1 and the deceased formed a separate residence at Bandihalli and they were residing together.

2. PW-1 is the complainant. She is the neighbour and the landlord of the house the deceased and the accused. She has stated that on 23.04.2009 i.e., on the date of the incident, the deceased came to her house at about 7.00–7.30 a.m. and had tea and went back to her house. Thereafter, the complainant went to the Polling Booth to cast her vote for the Lok Sabha Election. When the complainant was returning back to her house, she noticed accused No.1 leaving the house on his two wheeler. The door of the house of the accused was slightly opened. Thereafter, the complainant entered the house and found the dead body of the deceased. She lodged a complaint, based on which, a case was registered in Crime No.111 of 2009. Investigation was taken up. On completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and five accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and under Sections - 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 36 witnesses and marked 22 Exhibits, along with seven material objects. The defence produced Exhibit-D1, namely, the statement of Accused No.2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By the impugned judgment, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as follows :

“A3 and A4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and A2 and A5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Further A3 and A4 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and A2 and A5 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

A1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 6 months for the offence punishable Under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Further A1 is sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Further A1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.”

4. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.1302 of 2012, seeking enhancement of the sentence against accused Nos.2 to 5 and Criminal Appeal No.1303 of 2012 for conviction of accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section–498A of IPC. Accused No.1 has filed Criminal Appeal No.916 of 2012 and Accused Nos.2 to 5 have filed Criminal Appeal No.915 of 2012, for setting-aside the impugned judgment and for acquittal of the accused.

5. Sri. K.M. Somashekara, learned counsel appearing for the appellants’ counsel submits that the trial court misread the evidence on record. That the trial court failed to consider the material in a proper perspective and has wrongly convicted the accused. That in the absence of any eye-witness to the incident, the