Inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and lack of cogent evidence to establish the demand for additional dowry and harassment after the marriage influenced the court's decision to uphold the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.395/2011 dated 23.01.2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XIV, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case is that;

The marriage of the deceased i.e., daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3 was solemnized with accused No.1 about five years back. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brother and sister of accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, as per the demand made by accused, P.W.3 has given Rs.65,000/- and 91 grams gold ornaments as dowry to the accused and also spent huge amount for performing the marriage. After the marriage, the deceased was started to lead marital life. During that period, at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 has started to demand additional dowry. They were also insisting the deceased to bring money for purchase of a bike and a car. At that time, P.W.1 has paid some money to purchase a bike and a car. In spite of it, the accused have started to give torture to the deceased-Mahalakshmi by demanding additional dowry. They were treating the deceased with cruelty and she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Due to the said torture, the deceased has come to her parents house. The deceased came and told the torture and she fed up with the harassment that on 23.09.2010 at about 3.00 p.m., in the house of her parents committed the suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the help of a Saree.

3. P.W.3 father of the deceased had lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and police have registered the crime and conducted the spot mahazar and investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, found that accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, filed the charge sheet.

4. The learned Magistrate after filing the charge sheet, took the cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court and accused Nos.3 and 5 were released on bail, accused Nos.2 and 4 obtained anticipatory bail and accused No.1 was in judicial custody.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 20 and 4 material objects. The accused persons were subjected to 313 statement and they did not chose to led any defence evidence. The Court below after hearing both prosecution and also defence counsel acquitted the accused persons. Hence, the present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order of acquittal.

6. The main grounds urged in the appeal is that, the Court below failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence. It is contended that P.Ws.1 and 3 i.e., parents of the victim stated that they have given the dowry to perform the marriage of their daughter and subsequently, P.W.3 also gave additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. P.W.6 is the maternal grandmother who corroborates the case stating regarding the quarrel, demand and settlements made between the victim and the respondents. P.W.8 in his evidence stated that after receiving the information, he had gone to the house of P.W.3. With the help of Jayaram and Suresha, P.W.5 opened the door and found the victim in a hanging position. P.W.5 is the witness to marriage talks and the settlements. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the known persons to the victim and they have stated with regard to additional dowry demands and the cause for victim committing suicide. P.W.18 is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem and gave Report in terms of Ex.P.10. P.W.19 is the Taluk Magistrate who conducted inquest. P.W.20 is the Medical Officer who declared the victim brought dead to D.G Hospital. The trial Judge committed an error in accepting the