JUDGMENT The appellant-accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The gist of the prosecution case discloses that the deceased Hassanbi is the wife of accused 1. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents of accused 1. The marriage of accused 1 with Hassanbi takes place about three years prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was agreed to be given. Out of it Rs. 1,000/- was given, however, it is agreed that a site would be conveyed in favour of accused 1. The agreed balance of Rs. 2,000/- and site were not given by the father of the deceased. Therefore, the accused 2 and 3 were constantly pestering the deceased to get the agreed amount and to see that the site is registered in favour of accused 1. 3. At the time of incident, the deceased was six months pregnant. It was around the night hours accused 2 and 3 insisted the deceased to get the assured property from their parents. P.W. 9 is the sister of the deceased and married to the brother of accused 1. She was also pregnant. The deceased and PW 9 told accused 2 and 3 to enquire with their parents instead of harassing them. Accused 1 got enraged by the conduct of the deceased for entering into argument with his parents, therefore kicked on the stomach. As a result, bleeding took place and ultimately in the process of abortion the deceased succumbed. 4. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the neighbour, has turned hostile and does not support the prosecution version. P.W. 3Hanumanthappa and P.W. 4-Mahaboobali Peersab are the persons who participated in the negotiations at the time of marriage. They speak to the fact that P.W. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- and a plot to the accused 1. P.W. 5 is an RMP Doctor summoned to treat the deceased some time immediately after the incident. He says that he finds that the abortion process had already set in, advised that the deceased to be taken to Government Hospital. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 are material witnesses to the incident, they have turned hostile. P.W. 5 is an RMP Doctor summoned to treat the deceased some time immediately after the incident. He says that he finds that the abortion process had already set in, advised that the deceased to be taken to Government Hospital. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 are material witnesses to the incident, they have turned hostile. P.W. 9 a witness to incident and is the sister of the deceased and sister-in-law of accused 1 and daughter-in-law of accused 2 and 3; she supports the version of the prosecution P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 are the Police Constables. P.W. 12 is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 13 is the sister of the deceased. PW 14 is AS.I. who conducts the part of the investigation. P.W 15 is the T.E.M. who conducted the inquest panchanama. P.W. 15 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama. P.W. 16 is the Police Inspector who conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. P.W. 18 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem P.W. 19 is the Dy. S.P. who conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 5. The evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the amount payable at the time of marriage is corroborated by the independent witnesses P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. P.W. 9 is a witness to the incident and she also speaks about the constant harassment meted out to her and the deceased to insist upon their parents to pay the balance of money and to convey the site in favour of accused 1. The P.W. 9 also testifies to the fact that when accused 2 and 3 were insisting the deceased to get the property, they told accused 2 and 3 to directly negotiate with their father and not to harass them Accused 1 got enraged by the conduct and kicks on the stomach of the deceased which results in abortion. The P.W. 18, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem also corroborates that a kick on the stomach would also cause an abortion without any visible injuries on the body. The evidence of P.W. 9 is also quite natural and credible. There is nothing to suspect about her veracity regarding she being a witness to the incident. 6. The P.W. 18, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem also corroborates that a kick on the stomach would also cause an abortion without any visible injuries on the body. The evidence of P.W. 9 is also quite natural and credible. There is nothing to suspect about her veracity regarding she being a witness to the incident. 6. In the cross-examination of P.W. 5-R.M.P. Doctor, it is suggested that the deceased did not state the reason for abortion to P.W. 5, therefore argued that abortion on account of assault is untenable and the post-mortem report also discloses that abortion could be for spontaneous and for natural reasons. The argument is based on isolated reading of the statement in the deposition of P.W. 5. The wholesome reading of the evidence discloses that P.W. 5 never meets and treats the deceased. Only by personal observation he finds that the abortion process had set in, therefore he advised her to be taken to hospital. When P.W. 5 had not made enquiries with the deceased, the question of deceased divulging the cause for abortion does not arise. 7. The evidence of P. W. 9 does not incriminate accused 2 and 3. It is not in the evidence that accused 2 and 3 abetted the assault in any manner. In the usual routine it appears that accused 2 and 3 taunted the deceased to insist upon her father to keep up the promise. The said conduct does not amount to an offence of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. The conduct of accused 2 and 3 as per evidence does not disclose that they are guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC or abetting the commission of such offence. The conviction of accused 2 and 3 is bad in law and set aside. 8. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 disclose that accused 2 and 3 never made demand of dowry at the time of marriage or as consideration for the marriage. The conviction of accused 1 and 2 for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is untenable. The same is set aside. 9. On overall consideration of evidence, it discloses that accused 1 is guilty of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, however the charge is framed for a lesser offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. The same is set aside. 9. On overall consideration of evidence, it discloses that accused 1 is guilty of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, however the charge is framed for a lesser offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. When the accused is charged for an offence under Section 304-B, the charge for lesser offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is unwarranted since offence under Section 304-B is the higher manifestation of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of accused 1 for an offence under Section 304-B is confirmed and conviction for other offences is set aside. The sentence imposed is too liberal. In fact the accused is guilty of offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The State has not taken steps at the right time for framing charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, in the appeal filed by the accused, there is no scope to convict for higher offences or to give any enhanced sentence. Keeping in view the nature of offence committed by the accused, the sentence imposed is liberal and does not call for interference. Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.