The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove charges of harassment and demand of dowry beyond reasonable doubt, and there must be a clear nexus between the alleged harassment and the commission of suicide.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence, they are disposed off together.

2. Criminal Appeal No.11/2011 is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC vide judgment dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C.No.68/2007 Criminal Appeal No.960/2010 is filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C.No.68/2007 whereby, the appellant herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.75,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.

3. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on both sides.

5. Before adverting to the arguments urged by learned counsel, it is worth to mention the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court as under;

The CoD Police, Bengaluru, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC based upon the complaint filed by the father of the deceased namely, K.H. Ravindranath before the Chitradurga Town Police on 28.02.2007, as per Ex.P1, alleging that his eldest daughter R. Sona was given in marriage to the accused about 12 years prior to the incident. At that time, she was studying in I PUC and the accused was a MBBS graduate. The complainant himself paid Rs.3.5 lakhs for pursuing his higher studies of D.C.H.

Thereafter, he also spent Rs.1.5 lakhs towards establishing a clinic. Even at the time of marriage, the complainant gave the accused Rs.1.5 lakhs worth of gold ornaments and spent Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, his daughter and the accused were staying in his house, and subsequently his daughter gave birth to a son. Thereafter, a quarrel took place and the accused made a separate house and was not in talking terms with the family members and his daughter was not allowed to visit her parents' house. The complainant used to visit the house of his daughter regularly and one month prior to the incident, he visited the house of his daughter and went back after taking to her. He also provided some treatment to his daughter due to depression, but the Doctor informed that there is no problem as such. Thereafter, on 27.02.2007, he had visited his daughter's house and stayed in her house, spent some time with his daughter and came back. On the next day morning by 7.00 a.m., he came to know that his daughter died and her body is floating in the water tank of the house of the accused. Immediately, he went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of his daughter floating in the sub-tank. He suspected that the accused could have committed the murder of his daughter and thrown the dead body in the sub-tank and thereafter, sought to take proper legal action against the accused. After receipt of the complaint, the Chitradurga Town Police, registered the case against the accused in Cr.No.43/2007 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The Police visited the spot, conducted inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Post-Mortem examination. During the investigation, PW.1 requested the Government to refer the matter to the CoD Police for investigation. Accordingly, CoD Police took-up the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. After the committal of case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court framed charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and he was put on trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22, got marked 19 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.19 and the material objects as per MOs. 1 to