Court upheld concurrent findings of guilt for cruelty and dowry demands, establishing that evidence supported claims of harassment, thereby affirming the conviction under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

ORDER :

RAVI V.HOSMANI, J.

1. Challenging judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.20/2016 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2016 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, in C.C.no.60/2007, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri KR Lingaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted revision petition was by accused no.1 against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 4 98 -A of Indian Penal Code, 1872, (' IPC ', for short) and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for 30 days. Likewise, for offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act (' DPA ' for short), he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. And for offence punishable under Section 4 of , to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay fine amount to undergo further imprisonment for 30 days.

3. It was submitted, prosecution case was based on a complaint filed by Marimallegowda (PW.1), father of Lathakumari (PW.2). It was alleged that PW.2 married accused no.1 ('A1', for short) on 22.08.2004 and accused no.2 and 3 were his parents; while accused no.4 and 5 were his sisters. It was alleged, at time of marriage, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 120 gms. of gold ornaments were given to A1. And after marriage, PW.2 was residing with A1, at Bhadravati.

4. It was further submitted, shortly thereafter, A1 began harassing PW.2 with demand for further dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and threatening her with dire consequences along with physical and mental cruelty, which continued even after PW.1, Yalakkigowda (PW.5) and Sudhakara (PW.4) counseled A1 against ill-treating PW.2. It was alleged that A1 also threatened to take away her life. And on 10.03.2005 at about 8 p.m., when accused tried to force her for abortion, she escaped, reached her maternal home at 3:30 a.m., and informed them about said incident, leading to complaint.Complaint was taken at Bhadravathi Police Station, but transferred to Hassan Town Police Station and registered as Crime no.148/2005.

5. After investigation recording statements of several persons and collection of material, charge-sheet was filed against accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 (ii), 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DPA .

6. On appearance of accused, their plea denying charges was recorded and matter was set for trial, wherein prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7.

7. Thereafter, statement of accused denying incriminating material was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’, for short). Accused did not lead rebuttal evidence. It was submitted prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt and there were material omissions and inconsistencies. Hence, trial Court rightly acquitted accused no.2 to 5 of all offences as well as acquittal of A1 for offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC , but erroneously convicted A1 insofar as offences under Sections 498 -A of and 3 and 4 of DPA . Even appeal was filed, same was dismissed without proper consideration leading to this petition.

8. It was submitted, as per complaint, inciden