Point of Law : Ingredients of Section 304B of the IPC and even the aiding provision of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is a presumption of law on the proof of essential ingredients mentioned therein which becomes obligatory for the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused dowry death.

JUDGMENT :

Crl.A.No.1140/2016 has been preferred by the appellant namely Mallikarjuna S/o. Shankarappa who was the Prosecuting Witness before the Trial Court, challenging the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.55/2014 dated 10.02.2016 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 besides Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961.

2. The appeal in Crl.A.No.1677/2016 has been preferred by the appellant/State challenging the aforesaid acquittal judgment in S.C.No.55/2014 for the offences stated supra. But both these appeals have been filed challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court seeking consideration of the grounds urged in these appeals respectively, and seeking to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.55/2014 dated 10.02.2016 and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences which were leveled against the accused persons.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri H.N. Shashidhara for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1140/2016 who is representing the counsel Smt. B.A. Sujatha who is on record and so also the learned HCGP for the appellant/State Smt. K.P. Yashodha in Crl.A.No.1677/2016 and so also the learned counsel Shri Umesh P.B. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in both these appeals and so also the learned HCGP for Respondent No.4 in Crl.A.No.1140/2016. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.55/2014 dated 10.02.2016 consisting of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-15 and so also the documents at Exhibits P1 to P24 inclusive of MO-1 to MO-9 and so also the evidence of DW-1 Dr. Shivakumar and contradictory statement of PW-1 marked at Exhibit D1.

4. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under:

It transpires from the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 namely Vasantha @ Vasanthakumar M.P. had married the deceased Smt. Sridevi and their marriage was performed on 21.04.2007 as per the customs prevailing in their society. During her marriage they had provided with dowry and subsequent to her marriage with the accused, Smt. Sridevi had led a happy marital life in her matrimonial house. It is stated that Sridevi was residing along with her husband and parents-in-law at Kubaturu village, Soraba Taluk. It is alleged that after their marriage, her husband including her in-laws had started demanding Sridevi to bring additional dowry from her parental home. In furtherance of their common intention, it is stated that her husband/Accused No.1, parents-in-law/Accused Nos.2 and 3 started subjecting Sridevi to physical as well as mental harassment. The accused are the respondents herein respectively in both these appeals. However, Respondent No.1 having died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal against Respondent No.1 namely Vasantha @ Vasanthakumar M.P. stands abated. However, it is necessary to state that due to the physical as well as mental harassment meted out by Accused Nos.1 to 3, Sridevi is said to have committed suicide by consuming poison as on 24.08.2012 at around 7.30 p.m. in her matrimonial house. Her death has occurred within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage and it is alleged that prior to her death, all the accused with a common intention had subjected her to physical as well as mental harassment in terms of cruelty. The deceased Sridevi who is none other than the wife of Accused No.1 Vasantha @ Vasanthakumar had committing suicide by consuming poison due to the harassment meted out to her. Hence, on filing of a complaint, criminal law was set into motion stating that the accused have committed the murder of the deceased Smt. Sridevi for offences under Sections 304B, 302 and 498A of IPC, 1860 and so also offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961.

5. In pursuance of the receipt of the complaint at Exhibit P6, criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P20 for the offences reflected in the FIR. Thereafter, the Invest