The court affirmed the principle of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that evidence must clearly substantiate claims of domestic abuse and dowry demands.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The above captioned criminal revision petition and criminal appeal are between the same parties and arise out of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 passed in CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Accused no.1 - H.V.Raju @ Savanda who is the petitioner and appellant in the above captioned cases, is the husband of respondent no.2 - Smt. Pramila. He and his family members were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, 'D.P.Act'), and were tried for the said offences in CC.No.19058/2006 by the Court of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of H.V.Raju with Pramila was solemnized on 07.07.1999 and from the wedlock, they have two children. FIR in Crime No.458/2005 was registered against H.V.Raju and four others for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information received from Smt. Pramila on 20.12.2005. It is the further case of the prosecution that prior to the marriage, there was a demand by the accused persons for payment of dowry, and therefore, a sum of Rs.One lakh in cash, gold and silver articles were given to accused no.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the marriage, H.V.Raju and his wife Pramila lived together in a rented premises belonging to CW-16 at Ulsoor for a period of two years and during the said time, accused no.1 allegedly demanded to give him a site and motor cycle as agreed by the family members of Pramila prior to the marriage.

5. The allegation against the accused persons is that in furtherance of such demand, Pramila was being mentally and physically ill-treated in her matrimonial house by the accused persons. Therefore, the family members of Pramila had provided a Hero Honda bike to accused no.1 and a 30' x 40' site was purchased by them in the name of Pramila. Inspite of the same, accused persons were ill-treating and torturing Pramila in her matrimonial home and in this regard, multiple times she had approached the police and had lodged complaint against her husband and family members. It is also alleged that accused no.1 was forcing her to sign divorce papers and on 07.11.2005, a demand was made by accused no.1 to bring a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of Pramila. On 19.12.2005, accused no.1 and his relatives had threatened Pramila of dire consequences to her life and it is under these circumstances, she had approached the police on 20.12.2005 and submitted her first information, based on which, FIR in Crime No.458/2005 was registered.

6. In the said case, after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against H.V.Raju and four others for the aforesaid offences. Since the accused persons claimed to be tried before the Trial Court in CC.No.19058/2006 registered based on the charge sheet filed in Crime No.458/2005, the prosecution to prove its charges against the accused, in all, had examined 21 charge-sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW21 and got marked 37 documents as Exs.P1 to P37. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record.

7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2012 acquitted accused nos.2 to 5 of all the charge-sheeted offences. Accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act. For the