JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Hassan in S.C. No. 89/2007 is called in question in these three appeals. 2. Six accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114, 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and has convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The original accused No. 5 (Sandeep) was not sent for trial, inasmuch as no case was made out against him in the charge sheet. 3. Crl. A. No. 366/2012 is filed by the State against all the accused who faced trial, questioning their acquittal for the offences of which they are acquitted. In the said appeal, the State has sought for conviction of all the accused for the offences with which they were charged. Crl. A. No. 367/2012 is filed by the State against accused No. 1 praying for enhancement of sentence imposed on him by the trial Court. Crl. A. No. 897/2011 is filed by the convicted accused No. 1 seeking for his acquittal. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the first accused with the complainant Runuka was performed on 26.1.2004 at Sringeri Shankar Muth as per Hindu Customs; accused No. 2 is the elder sister of accused No. 1; accused No. 3 is the husband of accused No. 2; accused No. 4 is younger sister of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 is the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3; all these accused were living together under one roof; accused No. 1 was working as a teacher in Government Higher Primary School at Alur Village; accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the relatives of accused No. 1 and they were residing separately in a different village; the complainant Renuka was being looked after properly by accused No. 1 and other accused for about two months after her marriage; thereafter all the accused started harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry of Rs. 6 and 7 are the relatives of accused No. 1 and they were residing separately in a different village; the complainant Renuka was being looked after properly by accused No. 1 and other accused for about two months after her marriage; thereafter all the accused started harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-; the said fact was informed by the complainant to her parents; parents of the complainant along with her relatives met the accused and held panchayats for 4 to 5 times; despite the same, accused did not mend their conduct; accused Nos. 6 and 7 were instigating other accused for harassing the victim; accused No. 1 started threatening the victim that he would marry another lady in case if she did not bring additional amount of dowry as per the direction of accused No. 1; at about 9.00 p.m. on 3.5.2005 all the accused started pressurizing the complainant to give her consent for second marriage, but such demand of the accused was refused by the complainant; accused No. 1 poured kerosene on the victim and tried to lit fire; the complainant raised hue and cry and consequently one of the neighbourers, namely, Dhanesh came and pacified the quarrel; on that night complainant stayed in the house of Mr. Chandregowda and in the next day morning she intimated about the incident to her parents; all the gold ornaments of the complainant are taken by the accused. On these among other allegations, complaint came to be lodged at about 9.00 p.m. on 5.5.2005 before Dhuddha Police Station, Hassan District, which came to be registered in Crime No. 69/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114, 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 26 witnesses and got marked 27 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, accused No. 1 has himself examined as D.W. 1 and got marked 4 Exhibits. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted all the accused except accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted all the accused except accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 contended that though the trial Court is justified in acquitting accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, has erred in convicting accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act; the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused had harassed the victim on any ground; so also, the evidence on record with regard to payment and acceptance of dowry is conflicting; though it is stated in the complaint that an amount of dowry of Rs. 2,65,000/- is paid to accused No. 1 at the time of marriage, in the evidence, the prosecution has confined the allegation with regard to such dowry to Rs. 1,00,000/-; the gold ornaments given to bride and bridegroom and clothes offered by in-laws to the couple are all customary in nature and they cannot be treated as part of the dowry; since accused No. 1 was financially well off and was a teacher working at a Government School, there was no reason for him to demand and to accept the dowry; since the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove guilt against any of the accused including against accused No. 1, the trial Court ought not to have convicted accused No. 1. It is further submitted by Sri Dinesh Kumar that after two months of the marriage, the complainant started residing with her parents, inasmuch as she did not want to stay in the village and that she wanted to live in a District place; the legal notices were exchanged between the parties 3 to 4 months prior to 3.5.2005 (the date on which the accused allegedly quarrelled with the victim and poured kerosene on her); since the victim was not at all staying with the accused and as there was exchange of legal notices on earlier thereto, the case as made out by the prosecution before the Court is false and fake; accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 were residing in their house in different village and they formed different family altogether and only accused No. 1 and the complainant were living together; accused No. 4 is the younger sister of accused No. 1 and her marriage was fixed during the relevant point of time. The sum and substance of arguments of Sri Dinish Kumar is that accused No. 2 to 7 were not at all residing with accused No. 1 and the complainant and they are falsely implicated by the complainant. 7. Per contra, Sri Chethan Desai, learned Government Pleader argued that the trial Court is not justified in acquitting all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; the material on record is sufficient to conclude that accused No. 1 poured kerosene on the victim with a view to commit her murder; other accused had caught hold of the victim-complainant in order to facilitate accused No. 1 to commit the crime punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He further submits that the sentence imposed on accused No. 1 for the offence with which he was charged is too inadequate. 8. Before proceeding further it would be beneficial to note the versions of each of the witnesses in brief. P.W. 1 is the complainant/victim. She lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at 9.00 p.m. on 5.5.2005, based on which, Crime No. 69/2005 came to be registered against seven accused persons. P.W. 2 is the neighbour of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 has participated in the panchayath held between the victim and the accused in the presence of elders. He has deposed about the information given to him by the victim about the harassment and about the demand of dowry by the accused. P.W. 4 is the father of the victim. P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 4. Both of them have deposed about the payment of dowry prior to the marriage, demand of dowry by accused No. 1 and regarding harassment by accused No. 1. P.W. 6 is one more panchayathdar. His evidence is on par with the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W. 7 is the neighbour who has deposed about the incident which occurred on 3.5.2005. P.W. 8 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama Ex. P2. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the neighbours. Both of them have deposed about the incident that happened on 3.5.2005. P.Ws. His evidence is on par with the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W. 7 is the neighbour who has deposed about the incident which occurred on 3.5.2005. P.W. 8 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama Ex. P2. P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the neighbours. Both of them have deposed about the incident that happened on 3.5.2005. P.Ws. 11 and 15 are the mahazar witnesses for Ex. P10, under which, two gold ornaments i.e. bracelet and ring of the victim, which were pledged by accused No. 3 with P.W. 14 were recovered. P.W. 12 is the panchayathdar who conducted panchayath between the accused and the victim in the presence of elders. P.W. 13 is the person who mediated between the parties for the marriage. P.W. 14 is the owner of the jewellery shop with whom accused No. 3 had pledged two gold ornaments M.Os. 5 and 6. P.Ws. 16 and 17 are the jewellery shop owners who prepared jewelleries on the instructions of the parents of the victim at the time of marriage of the victim with accused No. 1. P.W. 18 is the witness for mahazar Ex. P9 for the seizure of four letters, wedding photographs, wedding cards and video cassettes etc., P.W. 19 is the Manager of the wedding hall wherein the marriage has taken place. He has issued the receipt as per Ex. P16 after taking the rent of the marriage hall. P.W. 20 is the photographer who took photographs of the marriage ceremony and he had also videographed the wedding ceremony. P.W. 21 is the Police Constable, who arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 and produced them before the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police. P.W. 22 is another lady police constable. She has also participated during the arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 4. P.W. 23 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Dudda police station during the relevant point of time. He registered crime No. 69/2005 after receipt of the complaint by P.W. 1. He conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 24 has deposed that accused No. 1 with a view to re-marry another girl had come to his house to see his daughter; after seeing the daughter of P.W. 24, accused No. 1 had told P.W. 24 that he will come back along with his elders for marriage talks, in as much as, he has liked the daughter of P.W. 24. However, subsequently, P.W. 24 did not agree for the marriage of his daughter with accused No. 1, since he got suspicion about the conduct of accused No. 1. P.W. 25 is the Police Constable who carried the First Information Report to the jurisdictional magistrate. P.W. 26 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who investigated into the crime and laid the charge sheet. D.W. 1 is the accused No. 1 himself. Though, he has deposed in his examination-in-chief about the notice sent by him to the victim as per Ex. D1, he did not depose denying the allegations of the prosecution that he had demanded and received the dowry. He has also not deposed anything with regard to the allegations of further demand by him. Strangely, in the cross-examination, the Public Prosecutor put certain questions to D.W. 1, wherein he has denied about demanding of Rs. 2,65,000/- and about further payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 9. Undisputedly, the father of the victim namely (P.W. 4) was a Teacher working in the Government School; the marriage of the victim with accused No. 1 was performed after the retirement of P.W. 4; it is the case of the prosecution that the dowry amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- was paid by the parents of the bride to the bridegroom out of the funds received by P.W. 4 as retirement benefits; the defence has not disputed about the capacity of P.W. 4 or his relatives to make payment of Rs. 2,65,000/- to accused No. 1; however, the main defence of accused No. 1 is that the case of the prosecution regarding payment of Rs. 2,65,000/- is false, in as much as, the prosecution witnesses have admitted that only Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid as dowry, during their deposition before the Court. Further defence of the accused is that the prosecution has not proved its case with regard to harassment, beyond reasonable doubt. 10. P.W. 1 is none other than the victim herself. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that during the marriage talks, the accused demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash and 300 gms. of gold to be paid to accused No. 1. However, the panchayathdars who mediated between the parties for the marriage, settled the dowry amount for Rs. 2,60,000/- in cash apart from 250 gms. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that during the marriage talks, the accused demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash and 300 gms. of gold to be paid to accused No. 1. However, the panchayathdars who mediated between the parties for the marriage, settled the dowry amount for Rs. 2,60,000/- in cash apart from 250 gms. of gold; a wedding engagement ceremony was performed in the month of March 2003; on the date of the engagement ceremony, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by P.W. 4(father of the victim) to accused No. 1. Subsequently, the marriage between the victim and accused No. 1 was performed on 26.1.2004 in Shankarmutt Kalyanmantap, Hassan; in the meanwhile, marriage of the younger sister of accused No. 1 i.e., accused No. 4 was fixed with one Mr. Yogesh and P.W. 4 had paid Rs. 60,000/- in the hands of accused No. 1 as part of the dowry amount on the date of engagement ceremony of accused No. 4 with Mr. Yogesh; after the marriage date of the victim and accused No. 1 was fixed, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was paid by P.W. 4 to accused No. 1 and remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to accused No. 1 for the purpose of purchasing clothes. It is further deposed that gold ornaments were also purchased by the parents of the victim to be given to both bride and bridegroom. After two months of the marriage, all the accused in general and accused No. 1 in particular started harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-; the victim was looked down by the accused as a maidservant in the matrimonial house; accused No. 1 started troubling the victim to give consent for divorce, but such demand was refused by P.W. 1. It is further version of P.W. 1 that on 3.5.2005 accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her and other accused had held her tightly. However, the accused did not set her ablaze since she raised hue and cry and the neighbouring witnesses gathered. She has identified her gold ornaments which the accused had taken. In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that accused Nos. However, the accused did not set her ablaze since she raised hue and cry and the neighbouring witnesses gathered. She has identified her gold ornaments which the accused had taken. In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in a separate house in a different village namely, Hosakkoppalu; they used to come to the house of accused No. 1 twice or thrice in a week; accused No. 3 does not have any agricultural land at Mylanahalli village i.e., the native village of the victim; accused No. 3 was admittedly working as a jeep driver in irrigation department. Number of material omissions with regard to participation of accused Nos. 2 to 7 in the alleged crime are brought out by the defence in the cross-examination of P.W. 1; she admits that note of the payment of dowry was not prepared. It is also admitted by her that prior to lodging of complaint Ex. P1, she had approached the organization called as Spandana, which is attached to the office of Superintendent of Police, Hassan. The Superintendent of Police had advised the victim as well as accused No. 1 suitably; they were informed by the concerned authorities to behave properly at least till the marriage of accused No. 4 with Mr. Yogesh. 11. At this stage itself it is relevant to note that accused No. 1 had sent a legal notice as per Annexure-D1 through his advocate on 18.10.2004 to the victim (P.W. 1), in which it is clarified by accused No. 1 that though he was ready and willing to have marital relationship with P.W. 1 all through, she did not co-operate for the same. Despite panchayats were held in this regard, P.W. 1 did not mend her conduct; P.W. 1 and her family members used to threaten the accused with dire consequences and as it is not possible for both the parties to lead life together amicably, accused No. 1 requested P.W. 1 to co-operate for getting divorce by mutual consent. The said notice was sent through registered post acknowledgement due (RPAD) on 18.10.2004 at 10.44 a.m. from District Post Office, Hassan as is clear from Ex. D2. However, accused No. 1 did not receive the acknowledgement back after notice was served on P.W. 1. The said notice was sent through registered post acknowledgement due (RPAD) on 18.10.2004 at 10.44 a.m. from District Post Office, Hassan as is clear from Ex. D2. However, accused No. 1 did not receive the acknowledgement back after notice was served on P.W. 1. Hence, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Customer Facilitation Centre, Hassan Division, Hassan on 30.3.2009 complaining about non-receipt of acknowledgement as mentioned supra. The Superintendent of Post Offices, as per Ex. D3 dated 31.3.2009 intimated accused No. 1 that the records pertaining to the said period are not available in the Postal Department. Thus, the aforementioned facts make it clear that accused No. 1 had even made an attempt to compromise the matter and thereafter he had even made an attempt to get the marriage dissolved through compromise. P.W. 1 has specifically admitted that during the marriage she was given a necklace, gold chain and bangles by her father as customary gift. All these gifted gold ornaments are with her. However, she has further admitted that in the complaint she has mentioned that all the gold ornaments are taken away by the accused. 12. From the aforementioned version of P.W. 1 it is amply clear that accused Nos. 2 to 7 are innocent and they are not concerned to the family affairs of accused No. 1 and the victim. Merely because accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the near relatives of accused No. 1, a false case cannot be foisted upon against them. Admittedly, they are residing in a different village in different houses along with their respective families. It is too natural for the relatives to visit the house of another relative, likewise, naturally accused Nos. 2 and 4 being the sisters of accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 being the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 and accused No. 5 being the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3 would naturally visit the house of accused No. 1, either to guide them or to assist them or to spend some time with them, so also, accused Nos. 6 and 7 who are the distant relatives of accused No. 1 might have come to the house of accused No. 1 very rarely. The trial Court, in our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances has rightly found that accused Nos. 6 and 7 who are the distant relatives of accused No. 1 might have come to the house of accused No. 1 very rarely. The trial Court, in our considered opinion, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances has rightly found that accused Nos. 2 to 7 are innocent and they are falsely roped in the case. 13. The evidence of P.W. 4-the father of the victim is almost on par with the evidence of P.W. 1. He has also deposed about the demand of dowry by the accused for Rs. 3,00,000/- and payment of Rs. 2,65,000/- as settled in the marriage negotiations. Apart from the same, certain gold ornaments were also paid to both bride and bridegroom during the marriage. Even from the evidence of P.W. 4, nothing can be found against accused Nos. 2 to 7. The evidence of neighbours also does not specify any incriminating material against accused Nos. 2 to 7. On re-assessing the material on record, we are of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences with which they are charged. 14. We also express our concurrence with the conclusion reached by the trial Court with regard to acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Though it is the case of the prosecution that on 3.5.2005 kerosene was poured on her by accused No. 1, however, she was not set on fire. Such allegation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The aforementioned alleged incident has taken place at about 9.00 p.m. on 3.5.2005. Immediately after the incident, victim was allegedly rescued by the neighbours and she went to the house of P.W. 3 Mr. Chandrashekar @ Chandregowda; on the next day morning she called her parents over phone and informed about the incident. Despite the same, the complaint was not lodged either in the night of 3.5.2005 or in the morning of 4.5.2005. Absolutely, no reason is assigned as to why the complainant waited till 9.00 p.m. on 5.5.2005 for lodging the complaint. The complaint does not disclose any reason for belated lodging of the complaint. Even in the evidence, P.W. 1 has not satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging the complaint. Absolutely, no reason is assigned as to why the complainant waited till 9.00 p.m. on 5.5.2005 for lodging the complaint. The complaint does not disclose any reason for belated lodging of the complaint. Even in the evidence, P.W. 1 has not satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging the complaint. The only reason assigned by the victim is that she did not lodge the complaint since her father was not in the village and the complaint came to be lodged after consulting her father. If really, the victim's life was in danger and if really, kerosene was splashed on her by the accused, the victim would not have left without informing the police. 15. P.W. 4-the father of the victim also has not explained as to why complaint was lodged belatedly by P.W. 1. Moreover, the alleged incident of 3.5.2005 appears to be false and concocted. As is clear from Ex. D1-the legal notice sent by accused No. 1 to the victim, the matrimonial dispute had started between accused No. 1 and the victim about 7 months prior to the said alleged incident. Ex. D1 is dated 18.10.2004. In the said legal notice Ex. D1 it is specified clearly that the victim was residing in her parents place without any valid reason; accused No. 1 had called upon the victim to live with him or to give consent for divorce, which means, as back as on 18.10.2004 itself, the dispute had arisen between the victim and accused No. 1; so also, the victim was living with her parents even earlier to 18.10.2004 leaving the company of accused No. 1. Therefore, the alleged episode dated 03.05.2005 allegedly accused pouring kerosene on the victim appears to be false and concocted. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 16. The evidence on record amply proves the case of the prosecution with regard to harassment, demand and acceptance of dowry. The versions of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and other independent witnesses such as neighbours would make it clear that accused No. 1 was regularly harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry, in as much as, he was not satisfied with the dowry, which he had received. The versions of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and other independent witnesses such as neighbours would make it clear that accused No. 1 was regularly harassing the victim by pressurizing her to bring additional amount of dowry, in as much as, he was not satisfied with the dowry, which he had received. P.W. 1 is the best person to depose about the harassment meted against her by accused No. 1. Unfortunately, in this case the matrimonial disputes have started after about two months of the marriage. The complaint in question came to be lodged within about one year and four months of the marriage. Even according to the victim, she lived happily in the matrimonial house for about two months after the marriage. P.Ws. 1, 4 and other witnesses have in detail deposed about the manner in which the victim was harassed by accused No. 1. Ex. D.1 prima facie discloses that accused No. 1 was pressurizing the victim to give her consent for divorce. On reconsidering the entire material on record, we are of the clear opinion that the trial Court is justified in convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC in as much as, the victim was subjected to mental cruelly all through. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC needs to be confirmed and the same stands confirmed. 17. The evidence of panchayathdars who mediated for the marriage between accused No. 1 and the victim have fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 6, 12 and 13 are the panchayathdars who mediated in the marriage talks. Their evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution with regard to payment of dowry to accused No. 1 by the parents of the victim. They have also deposed as to how the payment of dowry was done in installments at the request of accused No. 1. All of them have deposed that Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid at the time of marriage engagement; Rs. 60,000 was paid at the time of marriage engagement of P.W. 4 with one Mr. Yogesh and remaining amount was paid at the time of marriage of accused No. 1 with the victim. Thus, in all, Rs. 2,65,000/- was paid by P.W. 4 to accused No. 1 in three installments prior to the marriage. The evidence of P.Ws. 60,000 was paid at the time of marriage engagement of P.W. 4 with one Mr. Yogesh and remaining amount was paid at the time of marriage of accused No. 1 with the victim. Thus, in all, Rs. 2,65,000/- was paid by P.W. 4 to accused No. 1 in three installments prior to the marriage. The evidence of P.Ws. 6, 12 and 13 is fully supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4. P.W. 1 is none other than the victim and P.W. 4 is the father of the victim. They have also deposed about the demand of dowry and payment of dowry. P.Ws 6, 12 and 13 are independent witnesses. There is no reason as to why they should tell falsehood against accused No. 1 if accused No. 1 is really innocent and has not demanded and received the amount of dowry. 18. As aforementioned, though accused No. 1 has examined himself as D.W. 1, curiously in the examination-in-chief he has not denied the allegations of the prosecution that he demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- and received Rs. 2,65,000/-. However, in the cross-examination, prosecutor himself has put certain suggestions to accused No. 1, which are denied by him. Be that as it may, we find that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 6, 12 and 13 is consistent, cogent and reliable. The evidence of these witnesses amply proves the case of the prosecution against accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence the conclusion reached by the trial Court in that regard stands confirmed. 19. From the aforementioned discussions, we conclude that the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 18.8.2011 convicting accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is just and proper and the same needs to be confirmed. Accordingly, the same stands confirmed. 20. We have heard the learned advocates on the question of sentence. Mr. Accordingly, the same stands confirmed. 20. We have heard the learned advocates on the question of sentence. Mr. K. Dinesh Kumar Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused No. 1 submits that accused No. 1 and the victim are residing separately since more than 10 years; they are fighting the litigations in various Courts including the family Court; accused No. 1 has already undergone imprisonment for about 4 1/2 months prior to trial and subsequent to the judgment of the trial Court and that the imprisonment already suffered is sufficient punishment that can be imposed on accused No. 1. He further submits that the fine amount can be enhanced by confirming the custody period already undergone. The said submissions made are opposed by Mr. Chetan Desai, learned Government Pleader contends that the sentence imposed on accused No. 1 is too meager under the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 had taken Rs. 2,65,000/- as dowry in the year 2004 and hence the victim needs to be compensated adequately. He further submits that the sentence of imprisonment shall also be enhanced as against the accused No. 1. 21. Accused No. 1 was a Government School Teacher; he has lost his job; he does not have any other avocation; he is fighting the litigation; he has also got the responsibility of getting his younger sister's marriage performed. Since 10 years, accused No. 1 and the victim are residing separately. Accused No. 1 has undergone imprisonment for 4 1/2 months. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to one year and sentence of fine needs to be enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000/- in toto in respect of all the offences. Accordingly, the following order is made: "(a) The judgment and order of conviction convicting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands confirmed. (b) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No. 2 to 7 for the offences with which they were charged stands confirmed. (c) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC stands confirmed. (b) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No. 2 to 7 for the offences with which they were charged stands confirmed. (c) The judgment and order of acquittal acquitting accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC stands confirmed. (d) Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,65,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (e) Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC. (f) In default of payment of fine of Rs. 2,65,000/- as mentioned supra, accused No. 1 shall undergo further imprisonment for four years. In default of payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC as mentioned supra, accused No. 1 shall undergo further imprisonment for two years. (g) The sentence of imprisonment as imposed supra shall run concurrently. (h) The period of imprisonment already undergone by accused No. 1 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C." Crl. A. No. 366/2012 filed by the State stands dismissed. Crl. A. No. 367/2012 and Crl. A. No. 897/2011 are disposed of accordingly.