The court established that an accused is entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when key evidence is uncorroborated.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The appellants being accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC.No.143/2012, on the file of the learned II Fast Track Court, Tumkur, are impugning the Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 31.07.2012, convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A and 304B read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 04B of IPC, under-go imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A of IPC, undergo imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of DP Act and convicting accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A of IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default sentences.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is that, deceased Rukmini married accused No.1 on 01.03.1998. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments worth Rs.50,000/-, 650 grams of silver articles and Rs.30,000/- towards scooter were demanded by accused and the same were given as dowry. After marriage, accused No.1 being the husband, accused No.2 being the mother-in-law started ill-treating the deceased by demanding additional dowry of Rs.80,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a matador. When the informant and his family members expressed their inability to pay such huge amount, the accused continued ill-treating the deceased. In the meantime, the deceased delivered two children. It was found that she was again four months pregnant. Since the second child was still young, the deceased wanted to abort the pregnancy. She did it against the medical advice but had not taken proper treatment. As a result, pus has formed in the uterus and she was experiencing unbearable pain. She was taken to hospital on 12.11.2011. But before reaching the hospital she died. Initially, it was suspected that she had consumed pesticide.

4. The informant filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 10 i.e., the present appellant and their family members for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98A and 304B of IPC. Investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A R/w Section 3 4 of IPC and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of the DP Act, only against accused Nos.1 and 2, while dropping the allegations against accused Nos.3 to 10 named in the FIR.

5. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs1 to PW16 and got marked Exs.P1 to 19 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But have not chosen to lead any evidence in their defence. They got marked Ex.D1 during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

6. During pendency of the trial, the Trial Court modified the charge to include Section 3 04B of IPC against both the accused. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the Trial Court formed an opinion that accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sections 4 98A and 304B read with Section 3 4 of IPC and under Section 3 , 4 and 6 of DP Act. It is also opined