Consistent and credible evidence is essential for conviction in dowry-related cases, as contradictions can lead to a reversal of conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.7/2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya have preferred this appeal.

2. Appellants are the son and mother and were accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.7/2014. Accused No.2 in the said case was father of appellant No.1 and husband of appellant No.2. Pending proceedings before the trial Court, accused No.2 died. Therefore, case against him was abated. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The charge against the accused was that they subjected Rashmitha @ Puttahonnamma/wife of accused No.1 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their demand for dowry. Ultimately, they drove her to commit suicide by consuming poison and attempting to hang herself.

4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’) and Sections 498A , 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC . As already noted, during the course of trial, accused No.2 died and the case against him abated.

5. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exs.P1 to P20 and MO.1 were marked. After examination of accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused No.1 filed his defence statement. On behalf of accused Nos.1 and 3, DWs.1 and 2 i.e. the Medical Officers of PHC, Koppa hospital and MIMS hospital, Mandya respectively were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

6. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 04B , 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 4 98A read with Section 3 4 and Section 4 of DP Act. Further the trial Court acquitted accused No.1 of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 3 02 read with Section 3 4 and accused No.3 of the charges for the offences punishable under , 302 read with Section 3 4 of and Section 3 of DP Act.

7. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and order, sentenced the accused for various terms of imprisonment and fine as follows:

8. Heard both side.

Submissions of Sri Suyog S Herale, learned Counsel for appellants:

9. There are material contradictions regarding demand and acceptance of dowry and alleged ill-treatment of the victim by the accused. The medical records show that the victim herself at the time of admission gave history of consuming poison and attempting to hang herself. Preceding the incident dated 24.05.2013, absolutely there were no allegations or complaints regarding the ill-treatment in connection with demand for dowry. The records of prosecution themselves show that, soon after the accused noticing the fact of victim consuming poison and attempting to hang herself, they shifted her first to the nearest hospital and from there to the major hospital. If they had intended to drive her to commit suicide or kill her, they would not have shifted her to the hospital. Except the relatives of the victim, no other independent witnesses were examined/supported the case of the prosecution regarding the alleged harassment. The incident took place within 6 months of the marriage. The evidence on record shows that on the previous day of the incident, accused No.1 and deceased stayed together in the house of her parents and then he had brought her back to the matrim