Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 171 (KAR)

Venkatesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-21

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT K Somashekar, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Ramanagara in S.C.No.239/2005 dated 24/25.08.2010, whereby accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years four months and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Out of the total fine amount, it was ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- to the parents of the deceased Lakshmi, namely PW.1-Thimmaiah and PW.2- Shivarudramma. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned HCGP for the State and perused the impugned judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Lakshmi daughter of PW.1- Thimmaiah and PW.2- Shivarudramma, was given in marriage to accused No.1-Venkatesh and their marriage was performed as per the customs prevailing in their society on 24.03.2002. During the marriage negotiation, the accused have demanded dowry in terms of Rs.75,000/-, gold jewellery of 175 grams and at their cost the marriage of deceased Lakshmi with accused No.1- Venkatesh was performed. The proposal relating to terms of dowry has been demanded by the parents of accused No.1-Venkatesh. Subsequent to her marriage while she was residing in the house of her husband, consisting her parents-in-law they demanded to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- and also gold jewellery of 102 grams. When the accused were demanding dowry from the deceased Lakshmi, that she has briefed her parents and narrated before them that her husband Venkatesh and also his parents arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 were giving physical as well as mental harassment to fulfill the demand of dowry as made by them. Subsequent to her marriage, the deceased Lakshmi has given birth to a child namely, Chandan. The accused were frequently demanding her to bring dowry in terms of money and also demanding to get the property in her name which belongs to her parents since they have no male issues. It is further stated in the theory of the prosecution that the accused have demanded to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- from her parents but the same has not been fulfilled. It is further stated in the theory of the prosecution that the accused have demanded to bring additional dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- from her parents but the same has not been fulfilled. She was subjected to cruelty physically as well as mentally by picking up quarrel frequently. At once they purchased a cow for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and was given to them. Even then the accused were giving physical as well as mental harassment to deceased Lakshmi by demanding to get the property in her name which belongs to her parents. In that regard, Panchayath was constituted for two times and the elderly persons advised accused Venkatesh and also his parents not to give physical as well as mental harassment to her. It is further narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution that due to physical as well as mental harassment by picking up quarrel, deceased Lakshmi got depressed on 04.12.2004 and in between 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. when her husband namely Venkatesh who left the house, she drowned in the well of her uncle and committed suicide. In pursuance of the complaint filed by her father PW.1- Thimmaiah, crime came to be registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of IPC in Crime No.136/2004. Subsequently, the case has been taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has thoroughly investigated the case by recording the statement of witnesses and so also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by the Taluk Executive Magistrate and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. But the charge for the offences under Section 302 of IPC has not been laid against the accused even though the FIR said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer inclusive of the aforesaid offence in Crime No.136/2004. Subsequent to laying the charge sheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. But the charge for the offences under Section 302 of IPC has not been laid against the accused even though the FIR said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer inclusive of the aforesaid offence in Crime No.136/2004. Subsequent to laying the charge sheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused have been summoned and also have participated in the case and charges were framed for the offences under Section 498(A), 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC and also offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, where the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused in all examined PW.1 to PW.24 and got marked several documents at Exs.P-1 to P-12. The contradictory statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.19 were got marked as per Exs.D-1 to D-4. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused have been examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but the accused have declined the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the prosecution case. Subsequent to recording of 313 statement of the accused, they did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and also the counter made by the defence counsel, on appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 to 24 and so also the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-12 as well as the contradictory statement at Exs.D-1 to D-4, and the evidence on which the prosecution has mainly relied upon namely, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 7, 19 and 24, analysed the evidence of those witnesses on the part of the prosecution and held conviction against the accused for the offences under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC but acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Though the learned Sessions Judge has held acquittal against the main offences under Section 304(B) of IPC, the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal judgment in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Though the learned Sessions Judge has held acquittal against the main offences under Section 304(B) of IPC, the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal judgment in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. 4. Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the evidence of PW.1 - Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa, who has filed the complaint before the Police as per Ex.P-1 and based upon his complaint, FIR has been registered as per Ex.P-9 and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and drew the spot sketch which subscribe signature of PW.22 and so also secured the postmortem report as per Ex.P-12 said to be conducted over dead body of deceased Lakshmi by PW.23 - Doctor. 5. Pw.2 Shivarudramma is the mother of deceased Lakshmi, whose evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.11, 12 and 14 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution even though they have given a statement before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as per Exs.P-6, P-7 and P-8. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which runs contrary to the evidence of these witnesses relating to the accused who gave physical as well as mental harassment to deceased Lakshmi and drew her either to commitment of suicide where her dead body was found in a well which belongs to her relative. 6. Pw.21 said to be the Taluk Executive Magistrate who has given evidence for the prosecution has specifically stated in his evidence that he conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P-2 in the presence of the panch witness and so also recorded the statement of the relatives of deceased Lakshmi. PW.1- Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa said to be the father of the deceased Lakshmi was recorded and so also statement of PW.2 - Shivarudramma said to be the mother of the deceased were recorded during inquest held over the dead body. Witnesses namely Thimmappa S/o Bettegowda, Nagesha S/o Late Puttaswamy were also present and their statements were also recorded. PW.1- Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa said to be the father of the deceased Lakshmi was recorded and so also statement of PW.2 - Shivarudramma said to be the mother of the deceased were recorded during inquest held over the dead body. Witnesses namely Thimmappa S/o Bettegowda, Nagesha S/o Late Puttaswamy were also present and their statements were also recorded. In the cross-examination of PW.21, he has specifically stated that he did not drew any map of scene of crime relating to the dead body found in a well and also did not drew any sketch in the presence of the said witnesses said to have given statement before him during inquest. He has stated that he did not note the place of incident and has examined the well where the dead body of Lakshmi was found; that the well was in a sloppy area and he did not secure any statements in detail relating to holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He has specifically stated in the cross-examination that during the course of inquest held over the dead body that her father PW.1 Thimmaiah did not give any statement that during the marriage of his daughter Lakshmi with accused No.1 Venkatesh said to be the bride groom, dowry in terms of Rs.50,000/- in cash and also gold neck chain, finger ring and bracelet was given. He has specifically stated and also elicited in the crossexamination that the accused Venkatesh said to be the husband of the deceased had insisted his wife to bring property from her parents as her parents did not have any male issues. He has also stated that her parents did not give any statement during the course of inquest held over the dead body that they gave Rs.15,000/- to his daughter in order to fulfill the demand made by the accused. He did not give any statement regarding that he provided a neck chain to his grandson as where the deceased has given birth to a male child subsequent to her marriage with accused Venkatesh. He did not give any statement regarding that he provided a neck chain to his grandson as where the deceased has given birth to a male child subsequent to her marriage with accused Venkatesh. During the course of inquest over the dead body, father of the deceased did not give any statement regarding the villagers namely Thammanna, Eregowda and Ramagopal, who are elderly persons had been to the village of the accused Venkatesh to leave the deceased back to matrimonial home and also they did not give their statement specifically that the accused Venkatesh and also his parents said to have been thrashed the deceased by insisting her to bring cash in a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parents house. However, Exs.D-1 and D-2 has been got marked on the part of the prosecution. 7. This evidence being vital in nature on the part of the prosecution but the evidence of PW.21 which runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased inclusive of evidence of PWs.3 and 4 but did not specifically state in their evidence that the deceased Lakshmi had meted out physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of her husband accused No.1- Venkatesh and so also cruelty meted out to her by her parents-in-law arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. But the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in respect of the allegation made in the complaint at Ex.P-1 and their evidence which runs contrary to the evidence of PW.21 being responsible Taluka Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Lakshmi relating to the accused having been given physical as well as mental harassment and also made the deceased Lakshmi to undergo depression and also the allegation in the complaint filed by PW.1 Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa as per Ex.P-1 and based upon his complaint initially FIR was registered by police by inclusive of Section 302 of IPC as well as other offences under Section 304(B), 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC besides Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused relating to dowry death under Section 304(B) of IPC and so also the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as where the accused have demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased Lakshmi during negotiation taken place prior to her marriage with the accused Venkatesh and even after marriage wherein she was residing in the house of her husband consisting of her in laws arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. When the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304(B) of IPC besides under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously held conviction against the accused for the offences under Section 498(A) of IPC that she has meted out physical as well as mental harassment. 8. Pw.23 - Dr. A.Vishwanath, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-12, but the postmortem report do not disclose either any internal injury or external injury over the dead body of deceased Lakshmi. 8. Pw.23 - Dr. A.Vishwanath, who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-12, but the postmortem report do not disclose either any internal injury or external injury over the dead body of deceased Lakshmi. But, 302 of IPC has been included in the FIR said to be recorded by the police during the course of registering the crime against the accused, but the Investigating Officer did not lay charge sheet against the accused inclusive of 302 of IPC but only laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC and so also the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act, 1961 and inclusive of 498(A) of IPC, but the prosecution did not put forth cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalize that the accused caused the death of deceased Lakshmi. The deceased Laksmi had lead a happy marital life in the house of the husband. She gave birth to a male child namely Chandan. This itself reveals that the accused did not give any physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased either drew her to death by drowning into the well and lost her life or accused have committed murder of the deceased, but the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective manner. 9. Pw.2-Shivarudramma who in none other than the mother of the deceased has specifically stated in her evidence which reveals that there is no illtreatment or any harassment given to her daughter Lakshmi either from accused No.1 Venkatesh or from her parents-in-law arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3. But on a cursory glance of the evidence of PW.1 - Thimmaiah who is none other than the father of the deceased and PW.2 - Shivarudramma who is none other than the mother of the deceased coupled with evidence of PW.21 being responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate have created doubt in the theory of the prosecution that the accused have demanded the deceased to bring dowry in terms of money and also in terms of gold jewellery and drew the deceased to lost her breath by drowning into the well. 10. However, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence in order to corroborate the death of deceased. 10. However, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence in order to corroborate the death of deceased. But PWs.1 and 2 coupled with evidence of PWs.3 and 4 runs contrary to the evidence of PW.21 who is a Taluk Executive Magistrate and so also the evidence of PW.18 said to be Pawn Broker who has prepared/sold gold ornaments as ordered by PW.1 Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa who is none other than father of the deceased Lakshmi and he had issued receipt at Ex.P-10. But, in the cross-examination of PW.1, there is nothing elicited with regard to gold ornaments got prepared by PW.18 to be given to either bride or bridegroom during their marriage. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.18 it reveals that these witnesses have been cited in the prosecution only for the purpose to prove a case against the accused that they have given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and drew her to lost her breath as where her dead body was found in the well. However, at a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 coupled with evidence of PW.23 - Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report, discloses that there are no internal or any external injuries on the person of the deceased Lakshmi. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which runs contrary to the evidence and the contents at Ex.P- 2 - inquest proceedings held over the dead body and so also the theory narrated by the prosecution that the accused have caused the death of deceased Lakshmi by extending physical as well as mental harassment and drew her to lost her breath. 11. Pw.24 is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case thoroughly and laid charge sheet. During investigation he secured the spot sketch as per Ex.P-11 which bears the signature of PW.22 and also secured the postmortem report at Ex.P-12. The prosecution even though examined PWs.11, 12 and 14, they have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of their statement at Exs.P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 inclusive of the evidence of PW.8 and PW.10 they were also given a go-by to the versions of their statement at Exs.P-3 and P-4. The prosecution even though examined PWs.11, 12 and 14, they have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of their statement at Exs.P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 inclusive of the evidence of PW.8 and PW.10 they were also given a go-by to the versions of their statement at Exs.P-3 and P-4. These are all the contentions taken by learned counsel for the appellants and seeks intervention of this Court by re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, if not, it would lead to miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing this appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State who has countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants but mainly concentrate on the evidence of PW.1 who is said to be author of the complaint at Ex.P-1 and who is none other than the father of the deceased Lakshmi and PW.2 - Shivarudramma who is none other than the mother of deceased Lakshmi and they have been given in evidence on the part of the prosecution that accused No.1- Venkatesh who is none other than the son-in-law and also being the husband of deceased Lakshmi and his parents arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 have picked up quarrel with deceased Lakshmi frequently and also insisted her to bring additional dowry in terms of cash and also gold jewellery from her parents as well as to get the property which stands in the name of her father as they did not have any male issues. PW.1- Thimmaiah @ Thimmappa who is none other than the father of deceased Lakshmi who has briefed regarding physical as well as mental harassment meted out to her by the accused even on 04.12.2004 but her marriage was performed with the accused Venkatesh on 24.03.2002. Prior to her marriage, there was a marriage negotiation taken in between the parents of the deceased and so also parents of the bridegroom in the presence of elderly persons as where the accused demanded considerable dowry in terms of cash and so also gold jewellery and accordingly, her parents had given dowry during her marriage with the accused Venkatesh. Besides that the accused were insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. Besides that the accused were insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. PW.8 - Nagaraja, PW.13 - Chikkalingegowda and PW.15 - Bhadra Giraiah even though they have been examined on the part of the prosecution but they have not stated anything about the last seen of the deceased and her dead body was found in the well and one Lokesh has informed about the death of deceased Lakshmi on 04.12.2004, but the said Lokesh who has given information about the death of the deceased has not been examined as a witness on the part of the prosecution. Even though the material witnesses PWs.8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 have been examined, they did not support the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Subsequent to her marriage while deceased Lakshmi was residing in the house of her parents-in-law that the accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and the same has been found in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, 3 and 4 coupled with evidence of PW.24 being a responsible Investigating Officer who investigated the case thoroughly and laid charge sheet against the accused. But merely because the learned Sessions Judge has held acquittal in respect of the offence under Section 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC and so also the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act, it cannot come in the way of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498(A) of IPC as where the accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion and held conviction against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC regarding the deceased Lakshmi who meted out physical as well as mental harassment in the hands of her husband so also her parents-in-law. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State praying to dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits as there are no justifiable grounds for interference in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. The entire case of the prosecution is revolving around the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the parents of deceased that accused No.1 - Venkatesh and also parents-in-law of deceased Lakshmi have caused the death of the deceased. 13. The entire case of the prosecution is revolving around the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the parents of deceased that accused No.1 - Venkatesh and also parents-in-law of deceased Lakshmi have caused the death of the deceased. There is no dispute that her marriage was performed with the accused Venkatesh on 24.03.2002 as per the customs prevailing in their Society but she died on 04.12.2004 as her dead body was found in the open well. The allegation made against the accused that they had given physical and mental harassment to the deceased Lakshmi causing her to lost her breath as where the dead body of deceased was found in the open well. There is no dispute that PWs.1 and 2 to be parents of deceased Lakshmi and also she has given birth to a male child namely, Chandan. She has lead a happy marital life in between 24.03.2002 and 04.12.2004. The allegation made in the theory put forth by the prosecution that the accused have caused for the death of deceased by harassment but PW.23 - Doctor who held autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-12, in his evidence, it specifically reveals that there is no internal or external injuries found on the person of the deceased even though the dead body was found in the open well which has no parapet wall and also as seen in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the vital witnesses on the part of the prosecution. PW.5 - Ramgopal and PW.17 - K.P. Kumar, who are the inquest panch witnesses have been secured during the inquest held by the responsible Taluk Executive Magistrate. They have admitted their signatures in respect of the inquest panchanama at Ex.P-2, but there was no internal or external injuries on the person of the deceased and even in the postmortem report at Ex.P-12 issued by PW.23 - Doctor did not notice either any internal or external injuries over the dead body of the deceased which was found in the open well. 14. The complaint at Ex.P-1 was filed by PW.1 who is the father of the deceased and initially based upon his complaint, the crime came to be registered against the accused inclusive of offences under Section 302 of IPC. 14. The complaint at Ex.P-1 was filed by PW.1 who is the father of the deceased and initially based upon his complaint, the crime came to be registered against the accused inclusive of offences under Section 302 of IPC. But no material has been secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in respect of 302 of IPC even though the dead body has been found in a well. Therefore, the said offence under Section 302 of IPC has been left out in the charge sheet but only laid the charge sheet against the accused under Section 304(B) of IPC that deceased Lakshmi had died within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC inclusive of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. During the marriage negotiation when the accused were demanding considerable dowry in terms of cash and also gold jewellery same has been given by her parents during her marriage. Subsequent to her marriage with the accused Venkatesh, she lead a happy marital life. During that period the accused were demanding her to bring dowry in terms of cash and also in terms of gold jewellery and so also demanding to get the property which stand in the name of her parents to her name as they did not have any male issues. But no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the major offences under Section 304(B) of IPC and so also the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of DP Act. 15. Normally the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC leading to physical as well as mental harassment meted out by the deceased under the hands of the husband and also her relatives, but the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC as where the deceased has breathed her last within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. But the said offence has not been proved by the prosecution. But the said offence has not been proved by the prosecution. Consequently, it cannot be believed in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are parents of deceased Lakshmi that she had briefed relating to physical as well as mental harassment meted out in the hands of the husband accused No.1 Venkatesh and also his parents arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 by insisting her to bring dowry in terms of cash and also gold jewellery and made deceased depressed by picking up quarrel with her frequently as narrated in the theory of the prosecution. However, at a cursory glance of evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 as well as evidence of PW.21 said to be the Taluk Executive Magistrate who held the inquest over the dead body of deceased Lakshmi in the presence of PWs.1 and 2, it is found that there are discrepancies even in the quantum relating to the dowry in terms of cash and also gold jewellery demanded by the accused and dowry given during the marriage of the deceased said to be performed by her parents. There was no demand of dowry at all so also demand made as narrated in the complaint and also the theory put forth by the prosecution in order to attract the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also specific evidence is necessary to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 498(A) of IPC, however, it cannot probabalize the accused for extending physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased and also made her to depression on 04.12.2004 as where her dead body was found in the well as per the sketch Ex.P-11. However, the learned Sessions Judge has misdirected and also misinterpreted the material evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 coupled with the evidence of PW.21 and also the evidence of PW.24 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused by thoroughly investigating the case so also the evidence of PW.23 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P-12. 16. 16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasoning and findings, I am of the considered opinion that in this appeal it requires to be interfered with the conviction judgment in respect of the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and keeping in view the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellants, as where the prosecution did not put forth cogent, corroboratory and acceptable evidence relating to the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC, where the learned Sessions Judge has held conviction, if not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice to the accused persons as there are infirmities found in the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. Consequently, the appeal is required to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid reasoning. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.239/2005 dated 24/25.08.2010 is hereby set aside. Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC. The bail bond executed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.