Judgment : 1. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court-IV, Mysore. 2. The facts reveal that appellant is the husband of Vinukumari (deceased) and that the marriage was just 6 years prior to her death. She had consumed poison on 23.06.2005 in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. while she was with the appellant. Though it is alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage, there was demand for dowry and subsequent demand for additional dowry, as the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and also under Section 304B IPC, the fact relating to the said demand does not arise for consideration as State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal for the offence under Section 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The prosecution claims that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment for unlawful demand all along i.e., after a year of happy married life till she died by consuming insecticide. The death of deceased due to consumption of poison is not in dispute. PW1 - Devaki is the mother whereas PW5 – Yatish Kumar and PW29 -Vijaykumar are the brothers of deceased. PW1 -Devaki the mother of deceased submitted a complaint (Ex.P1) about the harassment for additional dowry and also gold, by the appellant and to prove the said fact, prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW1 - the mother, PWs.5 and 29 - two brothers, PWs.7, 8 and 10 -the relatives of deceased, PWs.9, 13 and 14 - independent witnesses and also the documents at Exs.P22, 23 and 30 which were mainly considered by the Trial Court to award conviction for the offence under Section 498A IPC. During the trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 30, got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P34 and MO1 - the gold chain. After recording the statement of appellant, he did not lead any defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D1 to D16 - the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. During the trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 30, got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P34 and MO1 - the gold chain. After recording the statement of appellant, he did not lead any defence evidence, but got marked Exs.D1 to D16 - the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 304B, 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and it held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 498A and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. It is this conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court that has been challenged in this appeal. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The question that arises for my consideration is: "Whether there is any harassment by the appellant with a view to meet unlawful property or valuable security or failure on her part to meet the said demand of the appellant?" 5. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that on the death of Vinukumari, UDR complaint was registered on the report submitted by PW1 as per Ex.P26 wherein even PW29 signed the said report as a witness and the report reveals that Vinukumari was suffering from abdominal pain since long and as she was not able to bear the pain, she committed suicide by consuming insecticide. It is on the basis of this report of PW1 that UDR case was registered by the police. Therefore, he submits that as the witnesses even during the course of trial admitted the fact of abdominal pain suffered by Vinukumari, he claims that there is no harassment for unlawful demand and hence, conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 498A IPC is improper. It is also his contention that there is subsequent improvement by the witnesses solely because that the appellant did not transfer the property in the name of his daughters, a complaint came to be filed by PW1 as per Ex.P1. Hence, he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 6. It is also his contention that there is subsequent improvement by the witnesses solely because that the appellant did not transfer the property in the name of his daughters, a complaint came to be filed by PW1 as per Ex.P1. Hence, he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader relying on the documents Exs.P22, 23 and 30 states that UDR report was submitted under the pressure of villagers and it does not contain true facts. He also submits that there is clinching evidence before the Court by way of documents and also the oral evidence of witnesses and this evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence ordered by the Trial Court. 7. Ex.P26 is the report submitted by PW1 and it is marked in the evidence of PW30 -Mahadevaiah, Dy. S.P. Perusal of the report reveals that Vinukumari was suffering from abdominal pain and she was given treatment in different hospitals, but the pain was not cured and the report also reveals that relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial. In the report, PW1 also states that the deceased was not able to bear the pain and for this reason she consumed insecticide. This report filed by PW1 and signed by PW29 were proved in the evidence of PW30 -Dy. SP. So, now it is necessary to see as to whether the prosecution has brought on record the evidence to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P26 and whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the cruelty and harassment of unlawful demand. 8. PW29 - Vijaykumar, the brother of Vinukumari (deceased) was serving in military and in the month of January, 2002, he had sent a letter (Ex.P30) to the District Collector requesting for police protection from antisocial activities of the appellant as against his sister. This letter (Ex.P30) is addressed to the District Collector and it came into existence when there was no controversy between the parties about their relationship. This letter (Ex.P30) is addressed to the District Collector and it came into existence when there was no controversy between the parties about their relationship. In the letter, he has written that his sister was happy for about 6 months after the marriage and that the appellant was insisting her to bring lot of money and when she was not able to bring the money, he used to beat his sister and he has stated that his sister was suffering for 1½ years at the hands of appellant and therefore, he had requested the District Collector to report the matter to the police to take action against the his brother-in-law (appellant). 9. The document (Ex.P30) is important for the reason that it came into existence at the time when there was no controversy between the parties. It is further relevant to note that Ex.P22 is the copy of complaint dated 07.02.2002 filed by Vinukumari, wherein she has stated that for second delivery of her child she had been to her parents home, at that time, her husband was not treating her well and was insisting to bring money, and thereby requested the police to take appropriate action and to provide security. On the basis of Ex.P22, police have secured the presence of appellant and appellant had given an undertaking as per Ex.P23 to the police, in which there is a reference that he will not insist his wife to bring anything from her parents home and that he will look after his wife properly and there is also reference of delivery of second child and the wife was with her parents home and that after 5 months of delivery, he would bring his wife back to his house and look after her properly. This version of the appellant under Ex.P23 further substantiate the version of prosecution about the harassment for unlawful demand as stated in the letter (Ex.P30) of PW29 and also the contents of complaint (Ex.P22) submitted by Vinukumari to the police. This version of the appellant under Ex.P23 further substantiate the version of prosecution about the harassment for unlawful demand as stated in the letter (Ex.P30) of PW29 and also the contents of complaint (Ex.P22) submitted by Vinukumari to the police. If this was the attitude of the appellant in the year 2002, the conduct as disclosed in this document is supported by the evidence of PW1 - the mother, PW5 - Yathish Kumar and PW29 - Vijaykumar, the brothers of deceased and it is their consistent version that after one year of the marriage, there was harassment by the appellant to his wife insisting her to bring money from her parents. 10. As could be seen from the evidence of these witnesses even a day earlier to the complaint (Ex.P1), it reveals that Vinukumari had gone to her parents home on a demand of sum of Rs.20,000/- and she returned to her husband's home with a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Immediately on the next day, the incident has taken place. So far as this version about the deceased having gone to her parental home is disclosed in the evidence of mother and two brothers, but not in the evidence of other witnesses. The deceased having gone to her parents home may not be within the knowledge of other witnesses or neighbors and it is quite natural that PWs.1, 5 and 29 had the knowledge of she having had come to the village for demand of money. 11. That apart, PWs.13 and 14 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Since they are the neighbors of PW1, it does not mean that their evidence has to be discarded. They speak about the harassment for demand of money. PW9 -Shambulingegowda is the another witness examined by the prosecution who also speaks about the harassment. It is no doubt true that PWs.7 and 8 are the relatives of deceased and their evidence corroborates with the version of other witnesses and also independent witnesses. So there is clinching evidence about the harassment for unlawful demand of money and evidence of these witnesses is supported by the documents at Exs.P22, 23 and 30. The version of prosecution in this regard is consistent, cogent and trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the said version. 12. Now, the question arises as to why PW1 -Devaki has submitted a report as per Ex.P26. The version of prosecution in this regard is consistent, cogent and trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the said version. 12. Now, the question arises as to why PW1 -Devaki has submitted a report as per Ex.P26. It is in the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 29 that they were under pressure by the villagers of the accused and the reason may be that the deceased had left behind two daughters who are aged about 3 and 4 years at that time and it may be that the parents of deceased said to have insisted the appellant to transfer some property in the name of minors to safeguard the interest, so it may be because of pressure of the villagers that might have compelled PW1 to submit a report as per Ex.P26. The evidence is sufficient to discard the contents of Ex.P26. The version of witnesses is consistent and cogent and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses so far as proof of cruelty and harassment. 13. PW2 - Suresh and PW3 - Sannegowda are the attesting witnesses for inquest mahazar (Ex.P2), PW19 - Satish Kumar is the Taluka Executive Magistrate who held inquest proceedings, PW6 - Nagarajegowda is the postmaster who is attesting witness for spot mahazar (Ex.P3). It is further relevant to note that PW11 -Ramalal is the pawn broker and PW12 - Ganesh is his employee and both these witnesses depose before the Court that few days earlier to the death of Vinukumari, the appellant had pledged golden chain (MO1) and had taken money. So this fact also goes to show that the appellant was in need of money just prior to the death of Vinukumari and for this reason he had pledged gold chain (MO1). The circumstances which are brought on record in the evidence of PWs.11 and 12 support the version of prosecution. PWs.15 to 18 have turned hostile. They are the witnesses examined by the prosecution who belongs to the village of appellant. The circumstances which are brought on record in the evidence of PWs.11 and 12 support the version of prosecution. PWs.15 to 18 have turned hostile. They are the witnesses examined by the prosecution who belongs to the village of appellant. PW20 -Rajashekar is the Assistant Engineer who drawn sketch of scene of occurrence as per Ex.P31, PW23 - Venkateshachari is the another witness examined and he has turned hostile to the prosecution, PW22 -Mahadeva is the witness examined to prove shifting of deceased to the hospital for treatment after she consumed poison, PW24 -Lokesh is the police constable who carried first information report whereas PW25 -Mahalingaraju is the Assistant Sub Inspector who brought inquest report from PW19 -Satishkumar, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, PW26 - Shivanna is the PSI who recorded the complaint, PW27 - Manjunath is the PSI who registered UDR complaint of PW1 as per Ex.P26, PW28 - Sanathkumar is the doctor who held autopsy on the body of deceased as per Ex.P29 and PW30 -Mahadevaiah is the Dy. S.P. who completed the investigation and filed chargesheet. 14. From the aforesaid material, it is clear that the death of Vinukumari was within 7 years of her marriage. Further, there is clinching evidence of PW1 - the mother and PWs.5 and 29 - the brothers, the relatives of deceased and also the independent witnesses as stated above i.e., pledging of golden ornaments, to hold the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 15. So far as the sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has awarded imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-. The appellant has got two minor daughters and it is his responsibility to look after them. If he is confined to the custody for long period, it may affect future of the minor daughters. But anyhow, at the same time, it may not be proper to award inadequate sentence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that imprisonment for 6 months would be reasonable in addition to fine amount being enhanced. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part affirming the conviction for the charge under Section 498A IPC. The sentence is modified. The appellant is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part affirming the conviction for the charge under Section 498A IPC. The sentence is modified. The appellant is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant to undergo the sentence.