Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1070 (KAR)

Venkatesh v. State

2015-09-09

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, R.B.BUDHIAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21.3.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Sagar in S.C. No. 33/2003. By the said judgment, the Fast Track Court, Sagar has convicted accused No. 1 Venkatesh for the offences punishable under Sections498A and 304B of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the said Court. 2. Accused No. 1 has preferred criminal appeal No. 381/2011 seeking to set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed against him and sought for his acquittal. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2011 is preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and prayed to convict accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences for which they had been charged. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W. 1 (Dattatreya) lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 8 on 6.8.2002 alleging that there are five children to his parents, two male and three females. Except Manjunatha (younger brother of the complainant) and the deceased Nagarathna (the younger sister of the complainant), all the other children got married. Nagarathna was given in marriage to accused No. 1 (Venkatesh) on 20.5.2002 in the temple at Siravanthe village. Earlier to the marriage of Nagarathna, there were marriage talks that the complainant’s side have to give cash of Rs. 2.00 lakh and ten tolas of gold towards dowry and the marriage expenses. Accordingly, Rs. 2.00 lakh and ten tolas of gold were given before the marriage of Nagarathna. After the marriage, the deceased Nagarathna was staying along with all the accused in the same house. After some days, all the three accused started insisting the deceased Nagarathna to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parental place and in that connection, they started to give ill treatment to her. Nagarathna and her husband came to her parental place two times and she informed about the demand of amount to the complainant. The complainant told Nagarathna that he has performed her marriage by raising loan and still, he has not repaid the loan amount and consoled her stating that, after discharging the loan amount, he will arrange for the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant told Nagarathna that he has performed her marriage by raising loan and still, he has not repaid the loan amount and consoled her stating that, after discharging the loan amount, he will arrange for the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant also informed the same to Madhav Jetti Naik and three other persons, who were present at the time of marriage talks. After Nagarathna returned to her husband’s house, all the accused again started demanding Rs. 25,000/- towards the additional dowry amount and if she did not bring the amount, they will cause her death. Nagarathna informed about the ill treatment given by the accused over phone to the complainant. On 4.8.2002, the complainant along with his wife Shubha went to Sirivanthe to invite Nagarathna to the festival of their village. At that time also, Nagarathna informed them about the ill treatment given by the accused in connection with additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant told the accused that he was not possessing the money at that moment and he promised them that he will pay the same after some time, and requested them not to give ill treatment to his sister (Nagarathna). The accused did not send Nagarathna along with the complainant and his wife. On 5.8.2002, Janaki Harinaik (the mother of the complainant) came to Honnavar. At 5.00 p.m., she told the complainant that she has enquired about the welfare of Nagarathna and asked the complainant to contact them over phone. Accordingly, the complainant phoned to Sirivanthe and through one Chandrashekar, the complainant came to know that Nagarathna was serious and she was not in a position to talk and the said Chandrashekar asked the complainant to come with the elders. Immediately, the complainant, his mother, the husband of his sister (Madhav Jetty Naik) along with others reached Siravanthe at 12.00 mid night and they saw the dead body of Nagarathna in the shed behind the house of the accused. She was strangulated with the saree and the dead body was hanging. The complainant, his family members and the others came to know that because of the physical and mental ill treatment given by the accused in connection with the dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-, Nagarathna committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the complainant requested the Police to take action against the accused persons. The complainant, his family members and the others came to know that because of the physical and mental ill treatment given by the accused in connection with the dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-, Nagarathna committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the complainant requested the Police to take action against the accused persons. P.W. 13 (Police Sub Inspector) registered the first information in Sagar Rural Police Station Crime No. 197/2002 for the offences punishable under sections 304B read with section 34of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued the FIR. P.W. 16 (the investigating officer) after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused persons. Additional charge sheet was also filed for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined, in all, 17 witnesses and got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 77 and the material objects M.Os. 1 to 12. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined and 21 documents were got marked as per Exs. D. 1 to D. 21. 5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri. Nagendra Naik for the appellant (accused No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 381/2011, who has also appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the connected appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 844/2011. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate for the State. 6. Learned counsel for appellant (accused No. 1) submitted that with regard to demand of dowry amount and the ill treatment alleged to have been given to the deceased, there is no supporting material, both oral and documentary. Even looking to the contents of Ex. P. 8, when it is mentioned by the complainant himself that the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was paid towards the marriage expenses and the dowry amount, what was the need for demand of additional dowry amount. There is no specific allegation in the complaint in this regard. Even looking to the contents of Ex. P. 8, when it is mentioned by the complainant himself that the amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was paid towards the marriage expenses and the dowry amount, what was the need for demand of additional dowry amount. There is no specific allegation in the complaint in this regard. The learned counsel has also submitted that the deceased and accused No. 1 were living happily after the marriage and at no point of time, either accused No. 1 or accused Nos. 2 and 3 gave any sort of ill treatment to the deceased or they have demanded additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In this connection, he draws the attention of the Court to the documents Exs. D. 4 and D. 19 and submitted that the contents of the letter clearly show that the couple were living happily. With regard to the case of prosecution that accused No. 1 was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased Nagarathna and for that also, he was giving ill treatment and harassment, the learned counsel submitted that this was an improvement during the course of the trial and there was no such allegation in the complaint at the first instance. The oral and documentary evidence produced on both sides were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that there was demand for dowry amount and in that connection, there was ill treatment and harassment to the deceased. The learned counsel has submitted that to attract the offence under Section 304B of IPC, there ought to be ill treatment and harassment to the deceased by the husband and the other family members immediately prior to her death. In this connection, absolutely, there is no material placed on record to show that immediately prior to her death, the deceased was subjected to such type of cruel treatment by the accused. Hence, he submitted that Section 304B of IPC is not at all attracted in this case. The materials clearly go to show that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and when it became intolerable, she herself committed suicide. Lastly, he made the submission that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and submitted to acquit appellant accused No. 1. So far as respondents/accused Nos. The materials clearly go to show that the deceased was suffering from stomach pain and when it became intolerable, she herself committed suicide. Lastly, he made the submission that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and submitted to acquit appellant accused No. 1. So far as respondents/accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the connected appeal are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the materials and acquitted them and hence, it does not call for interference by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that there is evidence for demand of the dowry amount by the accused persons. He has submitted that there are also materials with regard to the demand of additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in that connection, the deceased was subjected to physical and mental ill treatment by all the accused persons. The evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 corroborates the evidence of the complainant (Dattatreya - the elder brother of the deceased). The learned Government advocate further submitted that if the dowry amount was not received by the accused, then what was the need for the accused to issue two cheques as per Exs. P. 15 and 16 and there is no explanation for the same. The incident in question took place in the matrimonial house where accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased Nagarathna were residing and there is no explanation from the side of the accused as to how the incident has taken place. So far as Ex. D. 1 is concerned, he made submission that the same was not confronted to the investigating officer during the course of cross examination and hence, it cannot be said that Ex. D. 1 has been proved by the accused and accordingly, it cannot be looked into. The learned Government Advocate further made the submission that for the contention for the learned counsel of the accused that the deceased was having stomach pain and for that reason, she herself committed suicide, no satisfactory material has been placed in support of the same and even doctor has not been examined to prove the said contention. Hence, he submitted that accused No. 1 has been rightly convicted by the trial Court and it does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, he submitted that accused No. 1 has been rightly convicted by the trial Court and it does not call for interference by this Court. So also he made the submission that as there is material against accused Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.A. No. 844/2011), the trial Court ought to have convicted them and hence, he submitted to allow the appeal preferred by the State and to convict accused Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the said appeal). 8. We have perused the materials. 9. P.W. 1 - Dattatreya is the elder brother of the deceased. He has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 8 making the allegation that Rs. 2.00 lakh towards the dowry and ten tolas of gold were given to the accused. He has also mentioned about the demand for additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and the ill treatment given to the deceased in that connection. P.W. 2 is the mother and P.W. 3 is the sister of the deceased. They have spoken about the accused demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and ill treatment given by the accused in that connection. P.W. 4 is the neighbour of P.W. 1. He has deposed that he had participated in the marriage talks and also deposed about the demand of additional dowry amount and the ill treatment to the deceased. P.W. 5 is the friend of the deceased. She has deposed that she had participated in the marriage talks, DD for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh, cash of Rs. 25,000/- and one ring to bride groom were given by the complainant. She has also spoken about the accused making the demand of additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and giving ill treatment to the deceased in that connection. P.W. 6, who is the friend of P.W. 1 (complainant) has also spoken in the similar way as deposed by P.W. 5. P.W. 7 is the panch witness to the inquest mahazar Ex. P. 21. P.W. 8 is the neighbor to the house of the accused. She has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the ill treatment given to the deceased. P.W. 9 is the gold smith. P.W. 7 is the panch witness to the inquest mahazar Ex. P. 21. P.W. 8 is the neighbor to the house of the accused. She has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the ill treatment given to the deceased. P.W. 9 is the gold smith. He deposed that he was called to the police station and asked by the police to weigh the gold ornaments which were on the dead body of the deceased and accordingly, he weighed the ornaments and valued the same. In that connection, a mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P. 22. P.W. 10 is the doctor who conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased. She issued the P.M. report as per Ex. P. 23. According to her, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. She has also deposed that COD police addressed a letter as per Ex. P. 24 and asked some information and she replied as per Ex. P. 25. P.W. 11 is the Taluka Executive magistrate, who conducted inquest mahazar proceedings over the dead body of the deceased, as per Ex. P. 21 and he sent Ex. P. 21 to the II Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Sagar along with covering letter Ex. P. 26. P.W. 12 is the Engineer who prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex. P. 27. P.W. 13 is the PSI who registered the case in Sagar Rural Police Station Crime No. 197/2002 and issued the FIR. He has also conducted the part of investigation i.e., spot mahazar as per Ex. P. 9 and prepared the rough sketch of the spot as per Ex. P. 29. P.W. 14 is the person who arranged the alliance of the accused No. 1 and the deceased Nagarathna. He had also participated in the marriage talks. P.W. 15 is the Dy. S.P. who apprehended the accused and he has conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 16 has deposed that he addressed a letter to doctor (P.W. 10) as per Ex. P. 24 seeking some information and obtained the information from P.W. 10 as per Ex. P. 25. He has also conducted the part of investigation, recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. P.W. 16 has deposed that he addressed a letter to doctor (P.W. 10) as per Ex. P. 24 seeking some information and obtained the information from P.W. 10 as per Ex. P. 25. He has also conducted the part of investigation, recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. P.W. 17 is the photographer who has taken the marriage engagement photographs of accused No. 1 and the deceased as per Exs. P. 31(1) to P. 31(46). 10. On the side of the defence, D.W. 1 - daughter-in-law of the astrologist has been examined and she has deposed that she wrote the contents of Ex. D. 19. D.W. 2 is accused No. 1 himself. He has deposed that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. 11. We have perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the sides before the Trial Court. The marriage of deceased Nagarathna with accused No. 1 - Venkatesh is not in dispute. Looking to the relevant portion in the evidence of P.W. 1 - Dattatreya, he has deposed that in the month of February 2002 accused Nos. 1 to 3, three brothers of accused No. 1 viz., Chandrashekar, Damodar and Parameshwar, their relatives and the elders came to the house of P.W. 1 for marriage talks and on the side of bride P.W. 1, his mother Smt. Janaki, his brother-in-law Madavajatti Naika, neighbour Chandrashekara Naika (C.W. 4), Jattatappa (C.W. 5) and Dharmanarayana Naika (C.W. 7) so also some relatives of P.W. 1 were present. He has further deposed that accused No. 1 and his family members have demanded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 15 tholas of gold as dowry and they have also made a proposal that P.W. 1 and his family members have to bear the marriage expenses of the both sides; after having the discussion about the same, they agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold, for which the accused and their family members agreed. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- has to be paid on the date of marriage engagement and remaining sum of Rs. 75,000/- and 10 tholas of gold has to be given before the marriage. Accordingly, on the date of engagement, he gave a DD for a sum of Rs. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- has to be paid on the date of marriage engagement and remaining sum of Rs. 75,000/- and 10 tholas of gold has to be given before the marriage. Accordingly, on the date of engagement, he gave a DD for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn in favour of accused No. 1 and cash of Rs. 25,000/- and in this regard documents Exs. P-5 and P-6 were also produced. He has further deposed that, as agreed in the marriage engagement talks, he along with one Dharmanarayan Naika (C.W. 7) went to the house of accused with a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and he gave the said amount to Manjappa Naika, who is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 and same was in-turn given to accused No. 2 - Kamalakshamma. On the date of marriage i.e., on 20.05.2002, 10 tholas of gold was given and the ornaments were also given to his sister Nagarathna; one neck chain and a ring was also given to accused No. 1. He has further deposed that after the marriage, accused Nos. 1 to 3 started giving ill-treatment to the deceased stating that the dowry amount is not sufficient and she has to bring additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- from her parental house and in that regard all the accused were assaulting the deceased. 2-3 times his sister came to his house along with accused No. 1 and at that time she told before him about the ill-treatment given by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and one Parameshwar. 12. P.W. 2 - Smt. Janki, who is the mother of the deceased, has also deposed about the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold, in the similar way as deposed by P.W. 1. She has also deposed that after the marriage, the deceased and accused No. 1 came to their house, at that time when they enquired with the deceased, she told that she is not happy in the house of accused and also stated that accused are demanding to bring a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Second time when her daughter came to her house, her daughter told that as her husband assaulted on her cheek, her teeth was broken. Then P.W. 2 came to know that for the additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- accused gave ill-treatment to the deceased. 25,000/-. Second time when her daughter came to her house, her daughter told that as her husband assaulted on her cheek, her teeth was broken. Then P.W. 2 came to know that for the additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- accused gave ill-treatment to the deceased. Even the deceased was telling over phone that accused No. 1 was assaulting her alleging that she has not brought the amount from her parental place. She has further deposed that to invite accused No. 1 for Bheemana amavase, the son and daughter-in-law of P.W. 2 were sent, but accused Nos. 2 and 3 have not allowed accused No. 1 and the deceased to attend the said festival since the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was not paid by them. 13. P.W. 3 - Geetha, who is the elder sister of deceased has deposed in her evidence that at the time of marriage talks, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 15 tholas of gold as dowry, but they agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold and also agreed to bear the marriage expenses of both the sides. She has also deposed that they gave a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- by DD and Rs. 25,000/- by cash, on the date of the engagement. A sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the accused by P.W. 1 prior to the marriage, at that time one Dharmanarayana Naika went along with P.W. 1 to give the said amount. After the marriage, deceased Nagarathna was taken to the house of accused. After 10 days, accused No. 1 and deceased came to their house, and on the next day accused No. 1 went back to his village. She talked with her sister i.e., deceased, who told before her that her husband assaulted her and broke the bangles stating that the amount given was not sufficient and he was demanding additional amount, so also the other two accused have insisted the deceased to bring the amount. The deceased also told before her that accused were not treating her properly and they were assaulting her. 14. P.W. 4 - Chandrashekar Naika, who is the neighbour of P.W. 1 - Dattatreya, has deposed in his evidence that he had participated in the marriage talks of Nagarathna which took place in the house of P.W. 1. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 14. P.W. 4 - Chandrashekar Naika, who is the neighbour of P.W. 1 - Dattatreya, has deposed in his evidence that he had participated in the marriage talks of Nagarathna which took place in the house of P.W. 1. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 15 tholas of gold for which the family members of the deceased agreed to give a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold; it was also agreed to give a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the date of marriage engagement and the remaining amount is to be paid before the marriage and the gold on the date of marriage. He has also deposed that on 10.03.2002 a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- through DD and cash of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to accused No. 2 -Kamalakshamma by the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 - Venkatesh. The remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- was given to the accused by P.W. 1, at which time Dharamanarayan Naika was also went along with P.W. 1. After the marriage, Nagarathna was sent to the house of accused. After 10 days, accused No. 1 and deceased came to the house of P.W. 1, accused No. 1 went back after staying for about one or two days. He talked with Nagarathna, she was not normal as she was earlier. When he insisted and asked her, then she told that the amount given to the accused is not sufficient and they have demanding additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in that connection they are giving ill-treatment and harassment to her, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are instigating accused No. 1 for the ill-treatment. 15. P.W. 5 - Nayana, who is the classmate of deceased Nagarathna, who were studying together from 8th Standard to SSLC and thereafter, herself and Nagarathna admitted to SDM college of Honnavar and studied together. She attended the marriage engagement and also the marriage of Nagarathna. On the date of the engagement Rs. 1,00,000/- DD and cash of Rs. 25,000/- was given by the side of bride to the accused as dowry; one ring was given to bridegroom and she came to know from Nagarathna that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was yet to be paid. On the date of the engagement Rs. 1,00,000/- DD and cash of Rs. 25,000/- was given by the side of bride to the accused as dowry; one ring was given to bridegroom and she came to know from Nagarathna that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was yet to be paid. Ten days after the marriage, Nagarathna came to her parental place, at that time, she went to the house of Nagarathna and after talking with Nagarathna she came to know that Nagarathna is not having mental peace in the house of her husband. Nagarathna told before her that though the marriage was performed by spending huge amount, it was of no use; deceased also told about accused No. 1 coming to the house in the late night by consuming alcohol, quarrelling with her and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also giving ill-treatment and insisting her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter, Nagarathna went back to her husband’s house. On 27.07.2007 Nagarathna came to her brother’s house along with her husband; she met Nagarathan in the house of P.W. 1, at that time also Nagarathna told that she was ill-treated in the house of her husband, her husband assaulted and broke her teeth and he behaved as such for the purpose of money. Thereafter, on an occasion, when she went to her mother’s house, she came to know that Nagarathna has expired. 16. Looking to the cross-examination of these witnesses, they have withstood in the cross-examination and have consistently deposed about the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold as dowry to the accused. During the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited from their mouth so as to disbelieve their version. 17. We have also perused the oral evidence of D.W. 2, who is accused No. 1 in the case. He has deposed in the examination in chief that he has produced the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 120/2005 marked as per Ex. D. 21. The said suit was filed by P.W. 1 against D.W. 2 and his elder brother Parameshwar. In the said suit, it was mentioned that at the time of marriage talks, since defendant No. 2 Parameshwar was in need of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for getting job to himself and for other business transactions, requested the plaintiffs and their family members for the said amount. In the said suit, it was mentioned that at the time of marriage talks, since defendant No. 2 Parameshwar was in need of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for getting job to himself and for other business transactions, requested the plaintiffs and their family members for the said amount. In the cross examination, D.W. 2 has deposed that he does not know as to whether himself and his elder brother Para mesh war had filed their written statement or not, in the said suit. He admitted as true that on 9.3.2002, he received a D.D. for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh from Dattatreya Harish Naik (P.W. 1). The copy of the said D.D. is produced as per Ex. P. 6. His brother Parameshwar was working in Corporation Bank, Ankola Branch. He has further admitted as true that his brother Parameshwar issued two cheques as per Exs. P. 15 and 16 for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh each. He admitted as true that for recovery of the amount mentioned under Exs. P. 15 and 16, the suits in O.S. Nos. 120/2005 and 158/2005 were filed. He shown ignorance in stating that as the cheques under Exs. P. 15 and P. 16 were not realized, the suits in O.S. Nos. 120/2005 and 158/2005 were filed. He has also shown his ignorance in regard to the purpose for which his elder brother Parameshwar had issued the cheques under Exs. P. 15 and P. 16. He denied the suggestion that himself, his brother Parameshwar and the other accused persons have received the dowry amount from Dattatreya (P.W. 1) and his family members and to repay the same, they have issued the cheques Exs. P. 15 and P. 16. 18. Looking to the materials on record i.e. the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 so also the evidence of D.W. 2 (accused No. 1) and the documents like Ex. P. 6 (copy of the D.D. for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh) and Exs. P. 15 and P. 16 (the cheques) and Exs. P-17 to P-20, the endorsement issued by the banks for the dishonour of the cheques, which clearly show that accused No. 1 and his family members had demanded and received the dowry amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs so also ten tola of gold from P.W. 1 and his family members. P. 15 and P. 16 (the cheques) and Exs. P-17 to P-20, the endorsement issued by the banks for the dishonour of the cheques, which clearly show that accused No. 1 and his family members had demanded and received the dowry amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs so also ten tola of gold from P.W. 1 and his family members. It is no doubt true that while arguing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1 submitted that, in the complaint, it is mentioned that the said amount is towards the dowry and the marriage expenses. But, the exact amount of dowry out of the said amount is not mentioned in the complaint and therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant and his family members have paid the dowry amount to the accused. But this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1 cannot be accepted for the reason that the cheques (Exs. P. 15 and 16) clearly show that the accused have issued the said cheques for the return of the dowry amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs by way of issuing the aforesaid two cheques. Otherwise, there was no reason for the elder brother of accused No. 1 to issue those two cheques. Looking to the cross examination of D.W. 2 (accused No. 1) in the case, he has not denied specifically that Exs. P. 15 and P. 16 (cheques) were issued for return of the dowry amount but he has shown his ignorance for the same. 19. With regard to the another contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1 and respondents (accused Nos. 2 and 3) letters (Exs. D-4 and D-19) show that the couple were leading happy marital life and there was no ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased Nagarathna in connection with the alleged additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- is concerned, we have perused the contents of Ex. D-4 letter, which is written by the mother of the deceased addressed to her son-in-law i.e., accused No. 1 and deceased Nagarathna, so also we have perused the contents of Ex. D-19 and the oral evidence of D.W. 1, who is the scribe of Ex. D-19. 25,000/- is concerned, we have perused the contents of Ex. D-4 letter, which is written by the mother of the deceased addressed to her son-in-law i.e., accused No. 1 and deceased Nagarathna, so also we have perused the contents of Ex. D-19 and the oral evidence of D.W. 1, who is the scribe of Ex. D-19. But looking to the contents of these two documents, it cannot be said that there is a mention in the said letters that there was no any sort of ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased and no such admission is forthcoming from the contents of those two letters. The contents of Ex. D-4 shows that accused No. 1 was advised to keep proper health, so also an advice was made to the deceased Nagrathna to perform the pooja and to have mental peace. Apart from that, when there is oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, which show that the deceased was ill-treated both physically and mentally in connection with additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and even there is evidence that accused No. 1 assaulted deceased on her cheek and thereby broke the teeth of deceased Nagarathna earlier to this incident, all these materials show that there was ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. 20. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, we agree with the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has established with cogent and satisfactory material that accused No. 1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court has properly appreciated the materials, both oral and documentary, and has rightly come to the conclusion in convicting the appellant-accused No. 1 for the said offences. 21. Looking to the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, the main allegations are against the appellant-accused No. 1. So far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation was that they were instigating accused No. 1 for giving ill treatment to the deceased Nagarathna. However, the prosecution has not placed cogent and satisfactory material to prove the alleged offences against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and there are no grounds made out by the State to interfere into the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3. However, the prosecution has not placed cogent and satisfactory material to prove the alleged offences against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and there are no grounds made out by the State to interfere into the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, we also agree with the findings of the trial Court that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal from the charges leveled against them. 22. Accused No. 1 has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304Bof IPC, it is the contention of the defence that prosecution has not placed the materials either oral or documentary to comply the requirements of Section of 304B of IPC. The prosecution has not placed the material to show that immediately prior to the incident deceased was subjected to such cruel treatment in connection with the dowry amount by accused No. 1 and his family members, therefore, it is the contention that Section 304B of IPC is not attracted in this case. 23. Perusing the materials on record and as we have already discussed above, there is evidence on record with regard to the demand of additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and in that connection accused was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. Looking to the evidence of P.W. 1, he has deposed that accused No. 1 was suspecting the fidelity of deceased Nagarathna and for that reason also accused was giving ill-treatment and assaulting her. The evidence of P.W. 5 - Nayan, who is the classmate of deceased Nagarathna, which shows that the deceased told before her that the accused No. 1 was coming to the house in the late night consuming alcohol and he was picking up quarrel with the deceased and the other family members were also giving ill-treatment insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 24. Looking to these materials, the ill-treatment as per the prosecution was not only on the ground of instigating the deceased to bring additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-, but it was also on the ground that accused No. 1 was suspecting the fidelity of deceased Nagarathna and he was also coming to the house consuming alcohol in the late night and was picking-up quarrel with the deceased. 25. We have perused the contents of the compliant (Ex. 25,000/-, but it was also on the ground that accused No. 1 was suspecting the fidelity of deceased Nagarathna and he was also coming to the house consuming alcohol in the late night and was picking-up quarrel with the deceased. 25. We have perused the contents of the compliant (Ex. P-8) lodged by P.W. 1 - Dattatreya, in the said complaint complainant has not mentioned specifically that immediately prior to her death deceased was subjected to mental and physical ill-treatment in connection with the dowry amount, though it is stated in general that accused were insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The marriage of deceased with accused No. 1 was performed on 20.05.2002 and the incident took place on 05.08.2002. As per the prosecution case itself the reasons for ill-treatment are many i.e., instigating the deceased to bring additional dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/-, suspecting her fidelity and accused No. 1 coming to the house in a drunken state and picking up quarrel to her and giving ill-treatment, therefore, these materials show that anyhow deceased was subjected to ill-treatment both physical and mental at the hands of accused No. 1 - Venkatesh and because of all these reasons Nagarathna committed suicide by hanging. Accused No. 1 - Venkatesh himself abets the commission of suicide by deceased Nagarathna otherwise there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the offence comes under Section 306 of IPC and not under Section 304B of IPC. It is true that there is no charge framed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section306 of IPC against the accused, but there is material on record to show that accused No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Under such circumstances, the Court can convict accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC even though there was no such charge framed by the Trial Court. In this connection, we refer to Section 221 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "221. Under such circumstances, the Court can convict accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC even though there was no such charge framed by the Trial Court. In this connection, we refer to Section 221 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under: "221. where it is Doubtful what offence has been committed.--(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. (2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of Sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. We also refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 11 in the case of K. Prema S. Rao and another V. Yadla srinivasa Rao and Others, at head note (C) of the said judgment, Their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: (C) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 306, 498-A - Abetment of suicide - Accused, husband forcing deceased to part with her land, received by her in marriage as 'stridhana’ - For said purpose concealed her postal mail - Cruel conduct of husband driven her to commit suicide - Accused convicted under S. 498-A for offence of 'cruelty’ - On same evidence he can be convicted for abetment of suicide under S. 306with aid of S. 221, Cr.P.C. and presumption under S. 113-A, Evidence Act can be raised against him - Fact that specific charge under S. 306was not framed against accused - Would not preclude Court from convicting accused for offence found proved. Therefore, though the prosecution material will not show that immediately prior to the incident the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in connection with the dowry amount and though the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC is not proved by the prosecution with satisfactory material, but in view of the above legal position, we are of the clear opinion that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, and the judgment of the Trial Court will have to be modified to that extent. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Crl.A. 844/2011 preferred by the State is hereby dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.03.2011 passed in S.C. No. 33/2003 by the Fast Track Court, Sagar, in respect of respondents-accused Nos. 2 and 3 is hereby confirmed. ii. Crl.A. 381/2011 preferred by appellant-accused No. 1 is partly allowed and the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.03.2011 passed in S.C. No. 33/2003 by the Fast Track Court, Sagar, for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC is hereby set-aside and it is further ordered that appellant-accused No. 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he has further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. iii. The judgment and order of conviction dated 21.03.2011 passed in S.C. No. 33/2003 by the Fast Track Court, Sagar, against appellant-accused No. 1 and the sentence imposed thereon for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is hereby confirmed and it remains unaltered. iv. The judgment and order dated 21.03.2011 passed in S.C. No. 33/2003 by the Fast Track Court, Sagar, is modified accordingly. v. All the above sentences shall have to run concurrently. vi. The appellant-accused No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of set-off of the custody period, which he has already undergone, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.