JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in S.C.No.909/2007 dtd. 17/08/2011, for the offences punishable under Sec. 304B, 498A of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: That the marriage of deceased Geetha and the appellant was performed on 11/4/2004 at Shivaprabha Kalyana Mantapa, situated at West of Chord Road, Bangalore. As per the case of the prosecution, a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 cash and gold ornaments were given as dowry at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the deceased Geetha and accused No.1 were residing in the house of accused No.2, who is the sister of accused No.1. There was constant quarrel and demand of dowry by all the members of the family i.e., accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 4. All the accused were demanding additional dowry and also demanding to sell the site belonging to the deceased. As she did not heed their words, they were harassing her and insulting her and not allowing her to live happily in the matrimonial house.

3. As there was a constant harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased, panchayat was held and it was decided to make a separate house for deceased and Accused No.1. Accordingly, PW10 - father of the deceased arranged a separate house for his daughter and son-in-law at Papaiah Layout, situated at Rajarajeswarinagar. He paid advance of Rs.25,000.00. Both the accused No.1 and deceased started living there separately.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that, the Accused No.1 used to consume alcohol and used to come late in the evening and was assaulting his wife - Geetha frequently. In other words, he was demanding money from Geetha and pressurizing her to sell the site. The deceased was not interested in selling the property. Hence, there was a constant quarrel between Accused No.1 and the deceased. Though P.W.10, his friends and family members tried to pacify the matter, it was not fructified.

5. On 19/7/2008, PW10 - father of the deceased got the information about the death of his daughter and he went there and saw the situation and lodged a complaint against accused No.1 and his family members. The police have registered the case in Crime No.70/2007 for the offence under Sec. 498(A), 304(B), 302 R/w 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and after conducting investigation, filed the charge sheet.

6. After committal to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court framed the charges against all the accused persons and read over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 21 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P36 and material objects marked at M.Os.1 to 5.

8. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the trial court convicted accused No.1 and acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Ss. 498A and 304 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused No.1/appellant has preferred this appeal, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction.

10. Sri.K.Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court committed serious error while appreciating the evidence and material on record, as such, the impugned order of conviction of Accused No.1 / Appellant is liable to be set aside.

Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, the evidence of PW10, who is the father of the deceased, does not corroborate the evidence of other witnesses namely PWs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 with respect to harassment and cruelty and also demand of dowry.

Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, there are inconsistencies with respect to harassment, cruelty and demand of dowry between father, mother and brother of the deceased.