This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of

conviction passed by the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge

at Bengaluru in S.C.No.909/2007 dated 17/08/2011, for the

offences punishable under sections 304B, 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

That the marriage of deceased Geetha and the appellant

was performed on 11.04.2004 at Shivaprabha Kalyana Mantapa,

situated at West of Chord Road, Bangalore. As per the case of

the prosecution, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cash and gold

ornaments were given as dowry at the time of marriage. After

the marriage, the deceased Geetha and accused No.1 were

residing in the house of accused No.2, who is the sister of

accused No.1. There was constant quarrel and demand of dowry

by all the members of the family i.e., accused No.1 and accused

Nos.2 to 4. All the accused were demanding additional dowry

and also demanding to sell the site belonging to the deceased.

As she did not heed their words, they were harassing her and

4

insulting her and not allowing her to live happily in the

matrimonial house.

3.

As there was a constant harassment and cruelty

meted out to the deceased, panchayat was held and it was

decided to make a separate house for deceased and Accused

No.1. Accordingly, PW10 3 father of the deceased arranged a

separate house for his daughter and son-in-law at Papaiah

Layout, situated at Rajarajeswarinagar. He paid advance of

Rs.25,000/-. Both the accused No.1 and deceased started living

there separately.

4.

It is the case of the prosecution that, the Accused

No.1 used to consume alcohol and used to come late in the

evening and was assaulting his wife - Geetha frequently. In

other words, he was demanding money from Geetha and

pressurizing her to sell the site. The deceased was not interested

in selling the property. Hence, there was a constant quarrel

between Accused No.1 and the deceased. Though P.W.10, his

5

friends and family members tried to pacify the matter, it was not

fructified.

5.

On 19.07.2008, PW10 3 father of the deceased got

the information about the death of his daughter and he went

there and saw the situation and lodged a complaint against

accused No.1 and his family members. The police have

registered the case in Crime No.70/2007 for the offence under

sections 498(A), 304(B), 302 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of Dowry prohibition Act and after conducting investigation,

filed the charge sheet.

6.

After committal to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court

framed the charges against all the accused persons and read

over and explained to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

7.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the

prosecution has examined 21 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 21 and got

marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P36 and material objects

marked at M.Os.1 to 5.

6

8.

After having considered the oral and documentary

evidence and after hearing the arguments of the respective

parties, the trial court convicted accused No.1 and acquitted

accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 498A and

304 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

9.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction,

the accused No.1/appellant has preferred this appeal, seeking to

set aside the judgment of conviction.

10.

Sri.K.Diwakar,

learned Senior

Counsel

for

the

appellant contended that the trial court committed serious error

while appreciating the evidence and material on record, as such,

the impugned order of conviction of Accused No.1 / Appellant is

liable to be set aside.

Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, the

evidence of PW10, who is the father of the deceased, does not

corroborate the evidence of other witnesses namely PWs.2, 3, 4,

5, 6 and 7 with respect to harassment and cruelty and also

demand of dowry.

7

Further, the learned Senior Counsel contended that, there

are inconsistencies with respect to harassment, cruelty and

demand of dowry between fat