Prosecution must clearly establish essential ingredients of dowry-related offences; lack of consistent evidence led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C No.247/2011 dated 07.07.2015.

2. During the pendency of the case, accused No.2-Ramaiah passed away. Hence, in view of order dated 23.10.2025, the appeal against deceased appellant No.2/accused No.2 stands abated.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tumkur Town Sub-Division, Tumakuru submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. It is alleged by the prosecution that, complainant's daughter Narasamma @ Savitha was given in marriage to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. At the time of marriage negotiation, accused demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- a gold chain and gold ring to accused No.1 and a set of hangings to the bride. Marriage of Narasamma @ Savitha with accused No.1 was celebrated on 26.04.2010 of Dhananayakanapura in the house of bride. On that day cash of Rs.10,000/-, a gold chain and gold ring was given to accused No.1 and set of hangings to the bribe, as dowry. After marriage Narasamma @ Savitha started living with the accused persons at Dhananayakanapura. All the accused started demanding Narasamma @ Savitha to bring additional dowry from her parents house. When she narrated the same to her parents, they told that they have already raised a loan to perform the marriage and they are not in a position to pay anything. The accused were advised through the elders. Even then, all the accused harassed Narasamma @ Savitha demanding her to bring dowry. Unable to bear the cruelty meted out to her by the accused, she consumed poison on 20.11.2010 at the residence of the accused. She was shifted to the hospital where she declared dead.

6. After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet accordingly. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in C.C No.471/2011 and thereafter case was committed to the Court of sessions and case was registered in S.C No. 247/2011. The Accused were enlarged on bail.

7. On hearing the charges, the trial court has framed the charges for the alleged commission of offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10, marked 10 documents as Exhibits P1 to P10.

9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, one Karihanumaiah was examined as DW1 and no documents got marked on behalf of the accused.

10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

11. The learned counsel, Sri.A.H.Bhagwan, for the appellant would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. There is no consistenc