JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.-The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act' for short) and under Sections 498A and 304B IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Kolar. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellants are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the Trial Court. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of accused No. 1. The marriage of accused No. 1 was held on 28.02.2001 with Padmavathi (deceased), the daughter of PW9-Lakshmamma. At the time of marriage, though a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and other gold ornaments and articles were demanded, the parents of Padmavathi (deceased) gave a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, a gold ring, a gold chain, watch and golden ornaments to her daughter in addition to TVS-XL moped for the use of accused No. 1. After the marriage, they led happy married life for about two months. Thereafter, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and were harassing the deceased to bring the said sum. At the first instance, the parents paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, but the accused were not happy. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for remaining sum of Rs. 10,000/- and few days earlier to her death, Padmavathi came to her parental home demanding the said sum with a grievance that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for not bringing the said sum. Ultimately, she returned home on the assurance of her parents that they would pay the said sum after sometime. On 11.10.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., Padmavathi committed suicide by hanging. This incident was informed to her parents and PW8-Krishnappa submitted a complaint (Ex.P3) to PW22-Mohammed Rafi, the Police Sub Inspector, which came to be registered in Cr. No. 122/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Thereafter, during the investigation, spot mahazar (Ex.P8) was held and at that time, rope (MO2), a piece of rope and knife (MOs.15 and 16) were seized. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after in question the body of deceased, it was subjected to postmortem examination and postmortem report (Ex.P10) was collected. Under the mahazar (Ex.P7) TVS moped (MO1) was seized. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after in question the body of deceased, it was subjected to postmortem examination and postmortem report (Ex.P10) was collected. Under the mahazar (Ex.P7) TVS moped (MO1) was seized. Three line gold chain (MO3), one pair of ear ring and hangings (MO4), one ring (MO5), mixie (MO6), blue colour saree (MO7), green colour saree (MO8), almirah (MO9) and sewing machine (MO10) were seized. The marriage CD (MO13) was also secured. The photograph on the body of deceased (MO14) were taken in addition to photos (MO11) and its negatives (MO12). On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused for the aforesaid charges. During the trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 24, got marked documents Exs.P1 to P13 and Mos.1 to 6. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. But anyhow, the contradictions Exs.D1 to D3 were marked in the evidence of PWs.7, 10 and 11. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel for parties and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and also under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. No sentence was awarded under Section 498A IPC, whereas for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 55,000/- and for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 3. I have heard Sri. N. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the appellants and also Sri. Satish R. Girji, learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to warrant interference in their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act?" 5. Satish R. Girji, learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to warrant interference in their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act?" 5. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that the evidence led by the prosecution is not consistent, cogent and trustworthy and that apart, there is no material on record to show that the sum of Rs. 20,000/- demanded is towards the dowry or a demand in connection with the marriage. So also, it is his contention that the witnesses have made vague and general statement about the accused having received dowry and the specific acts of each of the accused have not been stated by any of the witnesses. So far as MO1 is concerned, he submits that moped was purchased by accused No. 1 and that it is not an article given as dowry. It is also his submission that there is no consistency in the evidence of witnesses relating to harassment for the alleged demand of Rs. 20,000/-. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the conviction and also the sentence. 6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the judgment and order of the Court below contended that there is ample material on record both for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and as there is consistent version of the witnesses relating to the demand of dowry and its acceptance, he submits that appellants have not made out any grounds to warrant interference in their conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below. 7. PW1-Chowda Reddy and PW10-Byrareddy are the uncles of the deceased, whereas PW7-Rukmini is her sister, PW8-Krishnappa is her elder brother, PW9-Lakshmamma is the mother of deceased. PW11-Krishnappa is the friend of father of deceased, whereas PW15-Nama Muthanna is the jeweler. In addition to the relatives of deceased, PWs.2 to 4 i.e., Dodda Venkateshappa, Munireddy and Lakshmana respectively are the persons who participated in the marriage talks. At the time of negotiations, the aforesaid witnesses state that the decision was taken to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cash, a gold chain, gold ring and TVS-XL moped to accused No. 1 and also some ornaments to Padmavathi (deceased). 8. At the time of negotiations, the aforesaid witnesses state that the decision was taken to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- cash, a gold chain, gold ring and TVS-XL moped to accused No. 1 and also some ornaments to Padmavathi (deceased). 8. The scrutiny of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in addition to close relatives of the deceased reveals that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded and the family members agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in addition to the aforesaid articles. So far as TVS-XL Moped (MO1) is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW18-Shivaramareddy and he states in his evidence that PWs.1, 3 and others came to his shop and purchased TVS-XL moped (MO1) in the name of accused No. 1 by paying a sum of Rs. 14,680/-. Though he has not produced any documents, the scrutiny of evidence of the close relatives i.e., PW1-Chowdareddy, the uncle, PW10-Byrareddy, the senior uncle, PW8-Krishnappa, the brother of deceased and others consistently state that the purchase of moped was just prior to the marriage and it was in the name of accused No. 1. The defence is taken that this vehicle was purchased by accused No. 1 on his own by paying its price. Except the suggestions denied, nothing is elicited in the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses. If really, accused No. 1 had purchased MO1 by paying the price, he could have produced the original receipt by way of defence. Admittedly, MO1 was purchased at the time of marriage and looking to the consistent version of the witnesses, a moped was given to accused No. 1 as per the marriage talks. The evidence being consistent, cogent and trustworthy, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution. At the time of marriage talks were going on, it is stated that all the accused demanded the aforesaid articles by way of dowry and though there is no specific role of each of the accused with regard to taking of dowry, the fact that MO1 stands in the name of accused No. 1 itself reveals that he took a moped as dowry from his parents-in-law. 9. The prosecution has examined PW15-Nama Muthanna, the jeweler and he has stated in his evidence about preparing these articles in his shop as suggested by Munivenkatareddy, the father of deceased who had come for getting these articles. 9. The prosecution has examined PW15-Nama Muthanna, the jeweler and he has stated in his evidence about preparing these articles in his shop as suggested by Munivenkatareddy, the father of deceased who had come for getting these articles. Though there is no identification of the articles produced before the Court, his evidence reveals that at the time of marriage, articles like gold chain (MO3), ear ring and hangings (MO4), gold ring (MO5) were prepared by him and given to the father of deceased. 10. In the course of investigation, prosecution has seized the three line gold chain (MO3), which was given as article of dowry at the time of marriage to Padmavathi, one pair of ear ring and hangings (MO4), one ring (MO5) to accused No. 1. So far as these articles are concerned, though there is consistent version in the evidence of the witnesses, but the persons who actually received these articles is not stated by any of the witnesses. There is a general statement that the accused received all these articles. It may be that it has been received either by accused No. 1 or accused No. 2 and at the most by accused No. 3, but no specific role is attributed. If anyone of the accused has received the gold articles, the others would be innocent. Therefore, as far as these articles are concerned, in the absence of any evidence on the part of prosecution as to who received these articles, it appears improper to convict both the accused Nos. 2 and 3 for taking these articles as dowry. 11. So far as demand is concerned, the scrutiny of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses does not reveal as to the specific persons who actually made a demand for the dowry. The witnesses state that it is the accused who demanded dowry, but it was necessary for the prosecution to say as to whether it is accused No. 1 or any other accused who had put this demand and even for the said demand, the statements are vague and general. Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act appears to be erroneous and illegal. 12. Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act appears to be erroneous and illegal. 12. As could be seen from the oral evidence of the close relatives i.e., PWs.1 and 10, who are uncle and senior uncle, PW8-the brother and PW9-the mother and also other witnesses, what is stated by them is that accused No. 1 had raised loan of Rs. 20,000/- and he was insisting his wife to bring the sum of Rs. 20,000/- from her parents for payment of loan i.e., to clear of it and therefore, that there was harassment and cruelty. From the aforesaid version, it is clear that the demand was not in connection with the marriage or is a dowry demand, it was only to clear the loan raised by accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the demand was made by the accused and for this reason they used to send Padmavathi to the parents home to bring money. As aforesaid demand is not in connection with the marriage or this is a dowry demand, conviction of appellants for the charge under Section 304B IPC is also improper and illegal. 13. So far as cruelty and harassment is concerned, it is relevant to note that the demand of Rs. 20,000/- is to clear the loan of accused No. 1 and it is an unlawful demand, therefore, if there is any harassment to procure the sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the parents of deceased, demand falls within the purview of Section 498A (b) and the aforesaid provision reveals that in case if there is harassment on a woman and if such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, then it is punishable under the provision of Section 498A IPC. 14. So far as the harassment is concerned, the prosecution in the evidence of PWs.1 and 10, the uncle and senior uncle of the deceased, PW7-the sister of the deceased and PW9-the mother of the deceased has brought on record in the chief examination that Padmavathi came to her house after 2 months of the marriage with a demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to clear the loan of her husband and she stated before the aforesaid persons that she was being harassed for not bringing the said sum. The evidence of these witnesses would clearly reveal that at the first instance a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid with an assurance to pay the remaining sum after sometime. PW7-the sister of deceased states in her evidence that the deceased used to tell her that she was subjected to physical cruelty for not bringing the said sum whereas PW1 in his evidence states that there was a threat by accused to bring the said sum. PW9-the mother of deceased states in her evidence that the deceased was beaten by the accused for not bringing the said sum. She also states that deceased had told before her that if this amount is not paid, she will commit suicide as she is not able to tolerate the said harassment. 15. So far as the relation between the husband and wife is concerned, it is a matter of privacy and no woman would tell her sufferings to any other person except those who are very close to her. The mother stand as a first person who is very close to the deceased, being the mother and it is she who states before the Court that the accused used to beat the deceased for not bringing the said sum. Though she has stated that the accused used to beat her, there is no specific mention about the name of the person who was beating. It is relevant to note that it is accused No. 1 who had raised loan of Rs. 20,000/- and for payment of the said amount, he was sending his wife to her parents and naturally it would be the first accused who could insist his wife to bring money being the debtor and therefore, though a general words is stated by the witnesses about beating by accused, from the facts and circumstances it could be gathered that deceased was being harassed for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- by her husband (accused No. 1). So far as this material on record, I am of the opinion that there is evidence under Section 498A IPC as against accused No. 1 and as there is general statement about accused Nos. 2 and 3, they cannot be convicted as there is no specification. 20,000/- by her husband (accused No. 1). So far as this material on record, I am of the opinion that there is evidence under Section 498A IPC as against accused No. 1 and as there is general statement about accused Nos. 2 and 3, they cannot be convicted as there is no specification. The marriage of deceased was performed on 28.02.2001 and she died on 11.10.2001 at about 10.30 a.m. and she survived only for about 7 months after the marriage. 16. The prosecution has examined PW5 Pandurangam who printed the invitation cards of the marriage of deceased, PW6-Suresh is the attesting witness for (Ex.P2), PW12-Chowdareddy is the attesting witness for (Ex.P6), PW13-Chodareddy is the attesting witness for (Ex.P7) the seizure of TVS-XL moped (MO1), PW14-Narasimha is the photographer and the person who video graphed the marriage and the CD is marked as (MO13), PW16-Venkatashami is the attesting witness for the mahazar (Ex.P8) in which Mos.15 and 16 were seized, PW17-Beerappa is the attesting witness for (Ex.P7), PW19-Dr. Usha is the doctor who held autopsy on the body of deceased and produced the postmortem report (Ex.P10). Rest of the witnesses i.e., PWs.21 to 24 are the police officials and police officers who assisted the investigation, registered the crime and held the investigation. The scrutiny of material placed on record reveals the consistent and cogent evidence on record for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act and also provision of Section 498A IPC as against accused No. 1. Conviction of accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences charged is improper and illegal. 17. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that accused No. 1 has re-married and has two children and therefore, he pleads to show leniency. After the death of Padmavathi, may be that accused No. 1 has married another woman, but it is not mitigating circumstance so as to show leniency or could be considered as a special reason to reduce the sentence. Taking into consideration the age of accused No. 1 and the circumstances submitted by the learned Counsel, appropriate and reasonable sentence has to be awarded. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant No. 1 for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act and under Section 498A IPC is affirmed. Taking into consideration the age of accused No. 1 and the circumstances submitted by the learned Counsel, appropriate and reasonable sentence has to be awarded. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant No. 1 for the offence under Section 3 of DP Act and under Section 498A IPC is affirmed. Conviction of appellant (accused No. 1) for the offence under Section 4 of DP Act and under Section 304B IPC and conviction of appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 3) for the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and Section 498A and 304B IPC are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the said charges. The sentence ordered against appellant-accused No. 1 for the charge under Section 3 of DP Act is affirmed. He is further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused No. 1 is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of appellant-accused No. 1 to undergo the sentence. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid to PW9-Lakshmamma.