JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rural Police, Chintamani, charge sheeted two accused persons for their trial in relation to offences punishable under Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 498A, 304B, 302 and 306 IPC. Initially, the trial court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sec. 498A, 304B and 306 IPC. Charge under Sec. 302 IPC was raised at later stage.

2. The prosecution case is this : Reshma Taj, daughter of PW2 and PW3, was given in marriage to accused. Their marriage was solemnized on 5/6/2005. She died on 7/10/2007. PW2 made a report of death of his daughter to the police alleging that three months before the marriage, there took place a negotiation in connection with the marriage and, at that time, accused made a demand for cash of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, 250 grams of gold, a CT100 Bajaj motor cycle and house hold articles. PW2 agreed for giving cash of Rs.80, 000.00 and meeting his other demands. At the time of engagement, the demand of accused was met and marriage was thereafter performed. When Reshma Taj went to her husband's house after the marriage, she was treated well for a few days and then the accused started demanding that she should go to her parents' house and bring additional dowry in the form of cash and gold. In this connection she used to be subjected to physical and mental torture, and coming to know of these developments, PW2 somehow was able to arrange Rs.25, 000.00 for the first time and Rs.15, 000.00 for the second time for being given to the accused and a silk saree priced at Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for the sake of his daughter. Even then the demand by the accused did not stop and several panchayats were held in vain. On 7/10/2007 at 1.20 PM, accused compelled his wife to bring Rs.80, 000.00 from her parents house and as she refused, she was set on fire by pouring petrol on her body. Reshma Taj succumbed to the injuries.

3. Though the above were the allegations made in the FIR, according to investigation the death of Reshma Taj was suicidal one and because the death occurred within seven years of marriage in connection with dowry demand, the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sec. 304B and other offences mentioned above.

4. The trial court, assessing the evidence of eight witnesses examined by the prosecution, and documents as per Exs.P1 to P14 and 7 material objects, MOs 1 to 7, found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against second accused and therefore acquitted him of all the offences. So far as the appellant who is accused No.1 is concerned, the trial court held that the charge against him under Sec. 302 IPC was not proved and consequently he was acquitted of it. However, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sec. 498A, 306 and 304B IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore this appeal by the first accused who is referred to as 'accused' hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

5. I heard the arguments of Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel for the accused and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

6. The trial court has recorded the reasons that the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 3 is believable. They have clearly stated that accused received dowry in the form of cash and jewellery before the marriage and did not return the same after the marriage or within three months after the death of his wife and thus the offences under Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would get established.

6.1. In