The prosecution must provide clear evidence of dowry demands to sustain charges under IPC, with ill-treatment alone being insufficient for abetting suicide.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The appellant being accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.25/2014 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2013 passed in S.C.No.335/2011 on the file of the learned LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-52), for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 306 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short "the I.P.C.") sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of IPC; and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 06 of IPC, with default sentences; while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 3 04-B read with 302 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and also acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges leveled against them. Whereas the State has preferred Crl.A.No.296/2014, seeking enhancement of sentence.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, appellant-accused No.1 married the deceased on 09.11.2009. Accused Nos.1 to 3 with a common intention to demand the gold ornaments and cash of Rs.25,000/- towards dowry, subjected the deceased to cruelty. It is also the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had received 2 gold bangles; 3 gold rings; one long gold chain; 2 ear studs; one gold mangalya chain; gold nose stud; 2 gold necklaces and one chain etc and was also demanding Rs.40,000/- for purchase of car and thereby committed the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, the accused used to talk with his colleague-CW.10, and subjected the deceased to cruelty punishable under Section 4 98-A read with 34 of IPC. Further she was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand for dowry, which resulted in her death on 19.08.2010 at 3.00 p.m. in the house of accused No.1. Thereby, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Section 3 04-B read with 302 of IPC. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences under Sections 3 04-B and 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the learned Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 22, got marked Exhibits P1 to P53 and identified MOs.1 to 17 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statements under Section 3 13 of Cr.PC., but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence.

4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 306 of IPC while acquitting him for the offence under Section 3 04-B read with 302 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and also acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 for all the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.25/2014 seeking his acquittal. Whereas the State has approached this Court by preferring Crl.A.No.296/2014 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on accused No.1.

5. Heard Sri. Satyanarayana S. Chalke, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P for the respond