ORDER :

Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.P.Act’, for short).

2. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider the contradictions brought out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the conviction has been recorded based on the evidence of interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to establish the ingredients of the offences charged against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused No.1’). It is further contended that no evidence was produced in proof of demand and acceptance of dowry and therefore the trial Court has erred in convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. Further, the learned counsel would submit that based on the very same evidence, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4, by the same yardstick, the petitioner also should have been acquitted of the above charges.

3. These submissions are seriously contested by the learned counsel for